HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-08-19Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
August 19, 2008
7:00 p.m.
FILE
DATE
Present: Rod Howe, Chairman; Members: George Conneman, Larry Thayer, Susan
Riha, Kevin Talty, Hollis Erb. Excused: Fred Wilcox
Staff: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Planners:
Mike Smith, Christine Balestra & Darby Kiley; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town;
Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk
Others: Donna Duffy, Susan Johnston, Applicants; Rick Couture, PJ Marshall, Howard
Blaisdell, Tim Schmalenberger, Ithaca College; Steve Beyers & Dr. Don Bilderback,
Cornell
Chairperson Howe opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Fire exits were noted, posting and
publication(s) of the Public Hearing notices were accepted.
Persons to be Heard
There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time.
Chairperson Howe announced the next agenda item.
SEQR Determination & Public Hearing: Cayuga Radio Group Radio Facility,
Mecklenburg Road. Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga
Radio Group Radio Facilitv located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) across
from Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 27 -1 -14 2 Aaricultural
Zone. The project involves placina an antenna on a new 35 +/= foot tall wooden
pole and installing a 2' x 3' weatherproof equipment box at the base of the pole
for the purpose of providing a 250 watt FM translator to rebroadcast / simulcast
the WHCU 870 AM signal to the community for emergency purposes John
Rancich, Owner; Cayuga Radio Group, Applicant: Susan Johnston, President,
General Manger, Aaent,
Susan Johnston, General Manager
Chairperson Howe — We have the material, would you like to make just a few
comments, highlight aspects of the project.
Ms. Johnston — It's a very simple project. We're going to be putting up a telephone,
kind of a telephone pole with a simple antennae on it and the reason why we are doing
this ... The FCC has actually granted WHCU the opportunity to put the AM signal on an
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 2
FM frequency and the purpose of that really is because WHCU is pretty much the
community's radio station in terms of emergencies and this gives us an opportunity to
have an FM signal for WHCU. And we are putting up, basically, a telephone pole with a
simple antennae on it with a little metal box down below on the .farmland on
Mecklenburg Road, to accomplish this.
Chairperson Howe — And are you aware of any environmental considerations?
Ms. Johnston — No, we filled out the environmental, and I think there was a negative
determination on that.
Chairperson Howe — One issue that you can or can not,. this issue of 36, you're not
exactly sure how tall it's going to be, and that might be important to just save the Zoning
Board an extra step. You may not know how tall it's going to be?
Ms. Johnston — Well, it's a typical telephone pole, so, I'm not sure ... I mean, it's going to
be the same height as the telephone poles on Mecklenburg Road. It's going to be a
wooden telephone pole.
Ms. Balestra — Telephone poles typically range between 35 and 50 feet tall.
Ms. Johnston — So we'll have to put it into the ground and,*. it's going to be, probably the
same height as the other telephone poles on Mecklenburg Road,
Chairperson Howe — Questions? We'll just do both SEQR and general questions now
and then separate them out before we open the public hearing. Questions?
Board Member Erb — I wondered if there would be much of a construction road to go
through the cornfields?
Ms. Johnston — No. We've already met with NYSEG and with the property owner and
with their architect and there actually isn't going to be a road. Where the...NYSEG will
put the lines underground and we are going to be going from one telephone pole on
Mecklenburg Road, underneath the ground to the telephone pole we are putting in,
about 350 feet into the property.
Board Member Erb — And that line is, provides you with the electricity that's needed?
Ms. Johnston — Yes.
Board Member Erb — Okay, that was one of my questions also.
Board Member Conneman — Susan, are you agreeable to say that the pole is going to
be between 36 and 39 feet?
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 3
Ms. Johnston — I honestly don't know how tall a telephone pole is, but I think that's how
tall it will be.
Board Member Conneman — Because to say it's between 30 feet and 80 feet is a lot...
Ms. Johnston — Oh no, it's not going to be...l would say it's probably going to be
about ... We put down 35 feet, that was pretty much what we thought it was going to be.
Ms. Balestra — the Board could limit the height of the poles and add it to the resolution
that's been drafted and then when the applicant needs to get a building permit, they
would just need to comply with the height requirement that was imposed by the
Planning Board.
Board Member Erb — Would we be thinking of something like 40 + / -?
Chairperson Howe — Well it currently says 35 + / -, so I'm happy...
Board Member Erb — With the understanding that 50 is not 35 +/-
Chairperson Howe — Is there a legal definition of + / -?
Board Member Erb — Well, I've asked that before for just that reason.
Ms. Brock — Well, I think that would give you probably about a foot either way, in this
case, but it depends on your unit of measurement. If you're measuring to so many
significant digits, then, you know, it's going to shrink or expand, depending on how many
significant digits you're measuring to. Here, because we are saying 35 + /-, I would read
that as being about a foot either way.
Board Member Talty — Above the ground.
Board Member Erb -- I'm happy with that as long as they use a small enough pole. But
they have to be aware of that.
Board Member Conneman — I just thought that the finding of 36 -39 gives you a range.
Board Member Erb — Sure, sure, 1 would be happy with that.
Chairperson Howe — So when we get to the resolution, we'll clarify that. If there's no
other questions, I think I will open the public hearing.
Chairperson Howe opens the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Chairperson Howe — We'll leave it open for a couple of minutes. Do you want to add
some clarification saying no larger than ... no higher than 39 feet or something like that...
We can go ahead and vote on the SEAR...
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 4
Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEAR...
Board Member Erb — I'll second it...
Chairperson Howe — So moved by Larry, seconded by Hollis. Any changes, discussion
on SEAR? All those in favor...
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 - 070
SEQR
Special Permit
Cayuga Radio Group WHCU Radio Translator
Mecklenburg Road/NYS Route 79
Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 19, 2008
Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Hollis Erb.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Radio
Group Radio Facility located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) across from
Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural Zone.
The project involves placing an antenna on a new 35 +/- foot tall wooden pole
and installing a 2' x 3' weatherproof equipment box at the base of the pole for the
purpose of providing a 250 watt FM translator to rebroadcast/simulcast the
WHCU 870 AM signal to the community for emergency purposes. John Rancich,
Owner; Cayuga Radio Group, Applicant; Susan Johnston, President, General
Manager, Agent, and
21 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to special permit, and
3: The Planning Board, on August 19, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by
the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, pictures of the
proposal and location maps submitted by the applicant, date stamped July 17,
2008, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed project;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 5
Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the
EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Howe — We're going to close the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. So where
would we add some language about what height...
Ms. Balestra — At the end of the proposed resolution, we would suggest that there be
another And Be IT Further Resolved clause that says, "based on the above findings,
(which are the special permit findings that you need to make) the proposed radio facility
will not exceed (blank) feet in height as measured from it's base at ground level.
Chairperson Howe — So do we want to fill in 39? (yes) Any other changes to the
resolution? Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted? Susan... seconded
by George. All those in favor...
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 - 071
Special Permit
Cayuga Radio Group WHCU Radio
Mecklenburg Road/NYS Route 79
Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2
Translator
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 19, 2008
Motion made by Susan Riha, seconded by George Conneman,
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Radio
Group Radio Facility located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) across from
Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural Zone.
The project involves placing an antenna on a new 35 +/- foot tall wooden pole
and installing a 2' x 3' weatherproof equipment box at the base of the pole for the
purpose of providing a 250 watt FM translator to rebroadcast/simulcast the
WHCU 870 AM signal to the community for emergency purposes. John Rancich,
Owner; Cayuga Radio Group, Applicant; Susan Johnston, President, General
Manager, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to the project has, on August
19, 2008, made a negative determination of
having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
staff, and
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 6
environmental significance, after
Short Environmental Assessment
Part II prepared by Town Planning
3, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 19, 2008, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, pictures of the proposal and location maps submitted
by the applicant, date stamped July 17, 2008, and other application materials,
and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed
Cayuga Radio Group radio Facility project, finding that the standards of Article XXIV
Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board makes the following additional findings, per the requirements
of Town Code Article VI, Section 270 -31 Subsection B:
1. The proposed radio facility is designed in good accordance with generally
.accepted engineering standards so that its construction and operation will not
pose a hazard to persons or property on the ground or in the vicinity of the
structure;
2. The topography and location of the proposed site are reasonably adapted for the
proposed radio facility use;
3. The size of the site is adequate in that the structure is located on an unoccupied
parcel having an area of sufficient size that no part of the structure could fall on
neighboring property should the structure collapse; and
4. The plans for the site (and vegetation, screens, fencing or other devices when
completed) provide adequate buffering of the site from adjoining land.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
Based on the above findings, the proposed radio facility shall not exceed 39 feet in
height as measured from its base at ground level.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb
Nays: None
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 7
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item.
SEAR Determination and Public Hearing: Little Brook Farm - Equestrian. Facility,
340 Warren Road. Consideration of Special Permit for the continued operation of
Little Brook Farms located at 340 Warren Road. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 68-
1-2, Low Densitv Residential Zone. The farm operation includes facilities to board
and train horses (average of 12 horses /ponies) and to conduct riding lessons
(average of 6 lessons per week). This is a seasonal operation, operating from
May through November at 340 Warren Road. This equestrian facility previously
operated under a time - limited use variance last granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals in 2001, expiring in July 2008. Gary and Donna Duffy,
Owners /Applicants.
Donna Duffy, Owner
Chairperson Howe — Do you want to say a few remarks about what we have before us?
Ms. Duffy — I think everything is fairly self - explanatory in the packet that I handed out to
everyone. This is the third time that we have gone through this procedure. As far as I
know, there haven't been any complaints, we've been good neighbors and I think that's
about it. If anybody has any questions for me, I'd be glad to answer them.
Chairperson Howe — And we will just note that we did receive an email from one of your
neighbors just basically voicing his support and enjoying being next door to this facility.
So that's from Leslie Struble, Questions? Comments?
Board Member Riha — I guess maybe Christine could say, what the, the background for
passing this 270 -55? Because now, that's been passed and this property doesn't meet
most of those criteria, right? So ... I mean, initially the issue was with the zoning code so
you were getting a waiver for that. Now it's okay to have these facilities in the low
density housing, so now we're getting a different kind of waiver?
Ms. Balestra — well, sort of...
Board Member Riha — For the Town law that was...
Ms. Balestra — Right. After the zoning code was updated in 2004, equestrian center
uses were added as permitted uses with special permit from the Planning Board.
Previous to that, they required variances from the Zoning Board because it was a use
that was not permitted in the low density residential zone. But, the four special permit
criteria that are listed, I believe are criteria that the Zoning Board still would need to
consider because they are dimensional criteria.
Board Member Riha — Because this property doesn't meet those criteria...
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 8
Ms. Balestra — Right. The property does not meet the 4 criteria that were added.
Board Member Riha — So it probably doesn't meet any of the criteria.
Ms. Balestra — Right. Correct,
Chairperson Howe — So if we approve this, it still goes to the Zoning Board.
Board Member Riha — Right. So the only thing I was wanting to hear from Christine is if,
and she may not remember, but what was the rationale ... I mean, how important are
these criteria, because I assume there was some time spent developing them and now
we're saying, it's okay...
Ms. Balestra — That I can not speak to because I was not involved with the update.
Ms. Brock — The zoning ordinance was revised before I came on as Attorney for the
Town. It's not really for you to determine whether or not they are entitled to the area
variances though. That's the Zoning Boards function; your job is to determine whether
the proposal before you is one that you think is consistent with uses in that area ... the
types of things that you always look at and not worry about the specific criteria per se, in
terms of the dimensions, because that is the function of the Zoning Board.
Board Member Riha — So you're saying even with this, the Planning Board, still, even,
still has to review equestrian centers in low density areas?
Ms. Brock — Yes, if you hear information that indicates that there are or are not
problems with the center, regardless of the criteria and the dimensions that are in the
criteria, if you hear there's excessive noise, dust, odor, that type of thing, you have
every right to consider that in determining whether or not to grant the special permit.
The criteria for special permit approval look at the impact on the character of the
neighborhood and all those kinds of things. That's what you'll be looking at.
Board Member Riha — Okay. Thanks, that helps.
Mr. Kanter — Maybe this would be a good place to jump in because I was here when the
Zoning was revised and I can tell you the basic intent and purpose of those four criteria
were basically to add adequate buffer of a use like this from adjoining residences. And
so, you put thresholds somewhere. You set numbers just like any other zoning
mechanism. So that will be something the Zoning Board will have to look at in terms of
the specific circumstances of this property.
Chairperson Howe — And it is unique in that it has a different kind of buffer.
Board Member Erb — I would imagine it also, the buffer also protects the animals from
the nearby residences, frankly, to some extent. The one question I would really like to
know is; where is your manure pile and how you handle it? How do dispose of manure,
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 9
how do you stockpile, how do you pile it, how do you dispose of it and where is that on
your property?
Ms. Duffy — We have a dump- trailer and it is taken away every other day and it
is %..various farms use it. It's organic, good stuff...
Board Member Erb — Oh, I know; okay.
Chairperson Howe — Any other questions? Why don't you have a seat and we will open
the public hearing.
Chairperson Howe opens the public hearing at 7:17p.m. There was no one wishing to
address the Board at this time.
Chairperson Howe — We will leave the public hearing open and address the SEAR.
Would someone like to move the SEQR or are there further discussions about
environmental impacts?
Board Member Talty — I'll move the SEAR.
Board Member Erb — I'll second it.
Chairperson Howe — Moved by Kevin, seconded by Hollis. Are there any changes? All
those in favor....
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 - 072
SEAR
Special Permit
Little Brook Farms Equestrian Center
340 Warren Road
Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -2
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
August 19, 2008
Motion made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis Erb.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued
operation of Little Brook Farms equestrian center, located at 340 Warren Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone. The farm
operation includes facilities to board and train horses (average of 12
horses /ponies) and to conduct riding lessons (average of 6 lessons per week).
This is a seasonal operation, operating from May through November at 340
Warren Road. This equestrian facility previously operated under a time - limited
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 10
use variance last granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2001, expiring in
July 2008. Gary and Donna Duffy, Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the. Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to special permit, and
3. The Planning Board, on August 19, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by
the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a bound packet of
materials including a narrative, pictures of the proposal and a survey map of the
property, submitted by the applicant and date stamped July 24, 2008, and other
application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed project;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality
Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the
EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Howe — It doesn't look like there is anyone who wishes to speak so we will
close the public hearing at 7:19p.m. Any further discussion?
Board Member Conneman — I would say it's a good thing for the neighborhood and if it
is operated in the way the Duffy's operate it, there's no problem.
Board Member Erb — Yeah, it's. charming and it's better maintained than some
residences.
Board Member Conneman — I can not say that Hollis, I would be quoted in the
newspaper.
Board Member Riha — One question for Susan is; is this only for the Duffy's? I mean, if
they sold this, would it extend to whoever they sold it to?
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 11
Ms. Brock —Yes, It's not personal to the applicants, it runs with the land.
Board Member Riha — But this is only for five years again?
Ms. Brock — It is not. The Zoning Board gave use variances that were time - limited, but
this is a special permit and it's not time - limited.
Chairperson Howe — I think the time limit before was because it wasn't allowed. And
now it is allowed with special permit.
Ms. Brock — Correct.
Board Member Erb — I think the circumstances here are very unusual considering that
it's across the street, it's surrounded partly by golf courses and by a massive horse farm
that is an allowed use because it's under an educational institution. So it's...
Board Member Riha — No, I drive by there every day and I'm impressed by the way it's
run, but I could also see it is a very small piece of property, and we're permitting up to
how many horses ... I mean, I could see if somebody who didn't do a good job running it,
then that could be an issue...
Board Member Conneman — Do we have recourse on that Susan? If someone were to
operate it sloppily, piling manure 10 feet high and so on...
Ms. Brock — There would be different laws that come into play. In terms of manure
handling, if the runoff were to get into any type of waterway, there would probably. be
different environmental laws that could be applied. Or if it were an actual nuisance, you
know, just the common law of nuisance could be applied.
Board Member Riha — The biggest thing I see, and they do a very good job there, is
unloading and loading horses and they are not there in the winter, where that would
become more of an issue.
Board Member Erb — Could we condition the special permit to maintain the same sorts
of conditions that the Zoning Board of Appeals has placed on the property previously in
terms of limits to the paid staff hours and the number or horses and the number of
lessons?
Ms. Brock — You can if you think those limits are necessary in terms of the special
permit criteria. I'll read you a few of them. They are in the zoning code at sections 270-
200 and the resolution does reference the criteria. You have to find that the "health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the community are being promoted by the project.
That the premises are reasonable adaptive to the proposed use and such use will fulfill
a neighborhood or community need. The proposed use will be consistent with the
character of the district in which it is located. The proposed use will not be detrimental
to the general amenity or neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devalue
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 12
neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. Operations in
connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by
reason of noise, fumes, vibration, illuminations or other potential nuisance." So you're
getting the general idea. So if you think applying those criteria that you need to put
some conditions in the special permit to assure that these criteria are met, you have the
right to do that.
Board Member Riha — But we can't, ..see here, they say, "no more than 15 horses
boarded on the premise", we can't say no more than X...
Ms. Brock — 1 believe you can. If you feel that the property is so small and so near
adjacent properties that the size of the operation needs to be limited to meet these
criteria, then you can do that.
Board Member Riha — because currently it's less than that number being boarded, is my
understanding, quite a bit less.
Chairperson Howe You can come back..
Board Member Riha — I guess I would just quickly like to input, say, you sold the
property and someone else was running a horse farm, whether you think, with your
experience with that property, whether these conditions would be reasonable. Fifteen
horses boarded on the premise at any given time. Twenty horses on the premise...
Ms. Duffy — I think you bring up a valid point in terms of if the property changed hands.
Board Member Riha — So would a reasonable property owner who was trying to do a
reasonable job managing horses. How many do you think could be boarded?
Board Member Erb — Especially considering that they might not be only a seasonal
operation.
Board Member Riha — Right, it might be year -round.
Ms. Duffy — Yeah, I just feel like that's getting beyond my scope to answer these
questions because this meeting, I thought was specifically regarding the operation as it
is for us.
Chairperson Howe — What's the highest number that you have boarded there?
Ms. Duffy — In terms of numbers of horses on the property or boarders?
Board Member Erb — Boarded. At one time.
Ms. Duffy —Average, five. ..six.. I
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 13
Chairperson Howe — So this has given them quite a bit of leeway...
Board Member Erb — But I would like to limit it and I thought the Zoning Board of
Appeals were very reasonable considering the location and how small the property
actually is. They're going to have to go for so many variances as it is, that I think
limiting this rather than just grandfathering automatically something to three owners
from now...
Ms. Duffy — I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think there's a misunderstanding because, when
you refer to boarders, that's the commercial part of the property, so 14 years ago, that
was the issue that we had. People were paying us for training. We have our own
horses there as well. So when you talk about that number, 12 is a valid number. Sorry
for that confusion.
Board Member Riha — Okay. So you would have 12 horses resident on the property.
Ms. Duffy — Oh yeah. We actually have 15 stalls there that sometime we use ... but we
have horses that don't go out for long periods of time, they're show horses. That's why
the facility has worked great for us all these years.
Mr. Kanter — That's why I think you have conditions b) and c) which the Zoning Board
had applied, which, the first b) is "no more than 15 horses boarded at any one time" and
C) is "not more than 20 horses on the premises at any given time ". So it really covers
both ends of it.
Chairperson Howe — And I don't think ... you are comfortable with the numbers that are
before us?
Board Member Riha — Well...(Board members all talking at once'..) ... the way the
Duffy's are currently running their operation, those aren't unreasonable- numbers,
because they're not there in the winter and as you just mentioned, their horses aren't
out all the time. But if somebody bought the property and they wanted to have 15
horses out...
Ms. Duffy — That would not be good.
Board Member Riha — Right. But we would have said that they can. By giving this
special permit, that it's a permitted use to put 15 horses on 1.75 acres.
Board Member Erb — Well, it will be a mudpit immediately.
Board Member Riha — Right.
Board Member Erb — And then they will have to deal with the neighbors complaints.
Board Member Riha — But I guess we have to do it this way.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 14
Board Member Erb — I would be very content to at least ask for say,..b) c) and e) of the
previous resolution, at the every least.
Board Member Thayer — With those numbers? You're happy with those numbers?
Board Member Erb — Yeah, it sounds like those numbers certainly work for the size of
the premises right now, and based on that, I'd be very happy to at least have those as
the upper limit for the horses present. So what I really care about is no more than 20
onsite and that I don't want a lot of signage there.
Chairperson Howe — I'm comfortable with that as well. Any other questions? Are we
ready to move a resolution and then we will make the changes... George... seconded by
Larry. Changes..,
Ms. Brock — I have two minor changes. In the second Whereas clause, it currently
states that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency .... with respect to
the project..." Change the word "project" to "special permit" because the ZBA will have
to do its own SEQR on the area variances and this isn't a coordinated review. And in
the Resolved clause A, it references the four criteria listed in article VII and the
reference to VII should read VIII.
Chairperson Howe — And then we're saying there would be a) b) c) ... we would cross
out d) on ours and then e) would become d) and then we'd cross off f). All those in
favor....
ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 - 073
Special Permit
Little Brook Farms Equestrian Center
340 Warren Road
Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -2
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
August 19, 2008
Motion made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued
operation of Little Brook Farms equestrian center, located at 340 Warren Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 68 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone. The farm
operation includes facilities to board and train horses (average of 12
horses /ponies) and to conduct riding lessons (average of 6 lessons per week).
This is a seasonal operation, operating from May through November at 340
Warren Road. This equestrian facility previously operated under a time - limited
use variance last granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2001, expiring in
July 2008. Gary and Donna Duffy, Owners /Applicants, and
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 15
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to the special permit has, on
August 19, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 19, 2008, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, a bound packet of materials including a narrative,
pictures of the proposal and a survey map of the property, submitted by the
applicant and date stamped July 24, 2008, and other application materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed
Little Brook Farms equestrian center project, finding that the standards of Article XXIV
Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. Such
approval is subject to the following conditions:
a. The granting of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
the proposal, specifically the four criteria listed in Article VIII, Section 270 -55,
Subsection I, and
b. That there shall be no more than 15 horses boarded on the premises at any
given time, and
c. That there shall be no more than 20 horses on the premises at any given
time, and
d. That there shall be no signs on the property to advertise or announce the
existence of the riding school, stables, or any other aspect of the operation.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Howe announced the next agenda item.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 16
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Phase 1A of the Ithaca Colle a Athletics and Events Center and a
recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign
variances for the proposed outdoor scoreboard, located on the eastern side of
the Ithaca College campus near the Coddin ton Road campus entrance Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 =1 -30.2, 41 =1 -119 41 -1„ -12.2, 414-24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium
Densi Residential Zone. Phase 1A includes the field house a rowinqLfacility,
weight training facilities, the aquatics center, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor
tennis courts and an all- weather turf field with seating. and li htin . This phase
will also include new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways,
new and expanded stormwater facilities and new lighting and landscaping
throughout the project. The applicant is also requesting a Site Plan modification
to the Remote Parking Project, a part of the Phase 1A of the Ithaca College
Athletics and Events Center proiect, to modify the previously approved planting
schedule. Ithaca C011e a Owner/Applicant: Richard Couture Agent.
Rick Couture, Ithaca College; Howard Blaisdell, Moody Nolan; Tim
Schmalenberger, MSI Lanscape Architects; and P.J. Marshall, RPM EcoSystems
Ms. Marshall gave a presentation (Attachment #1) on the RPM system for growing trees
with better root foundations to ensure faster growing, healthier, stronger and a higher
survivability rate than traditional landscape trees. Of note is that the number of trees
are not going to change, just the types and from whom. Handouts were provided to the
Board.
Board questions /comments.
Board Member Talty asked about cost. Ms. Marshall said they were comparable with
standard agriculture. Chairperson Howe thought a tour would be interesting. Ms. Brock
asked about longevity. Ms. Marshall said their oldest tree is 21 years old which is the
size of a 60 -year old tree. So that is an unknown but they do not expect the longevity to
be any different than standard agriculture. Ms. Marshall had an example of an 18 -year
old pin oak to illustrate the integrity of the wood. The integrity is the same even thought
the rings are wider. Board Member Talty asked about water needs. Ms. Marshall said it
would not take any more than it normally would. Chairperson Howe thanked her for her
presentation.
Board Member Erb had related questions but it was decided that
Mr. Blaisdell would cover his highlights and answer questions as they arose.
Mr. Blaisdell — In the packets, we were looking at using the RPM trees. It did change
the caliper size on a couple of the trees to help keep the economics the same. But as
you saw from the presentation, Ithaca College truly believes these will be better trees in
the long -term and will benefit the community as they will grow faster and become bigger
trees.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 17
A couple of other items that have come up since the last time we were here: the first
one we want to identify is the conservation easement area that Ithaca College is
proposing. They took to heart the comment about trying to preserve the trees at the
Garden Apartments and Ithaca College has gone above and beyond by suggesting that
not just preserving those but actually designating that area as a conservation area. You
should have in your packet a picture of the area and we have highlighted the trees in
that area. Not just within the triangle formed by the Garden Apartments, the track and
the roadway, but also extending that across the street, to the southeast. Any questions
on that?
Chairperson Howe — Is that in the resolution as well?
Mr. Smith — It is in the resolution but we wanted to talk a little bit more about it because
it wasn't clear in the material provided if a conservation easement was done, who would
be holding the easement? Who would be taking care of the monitoring of it? Any
enforcement, those types of things. I in talking with Susan and Jon, we didn't know if a
deed restriction would be a better way to go instead of a conservation easement or what
would be the best way to do this.
Board Member Erb — I would like to hear from Susan exactly what a conservation
easement then...lf we went with a conservation easement in this area, and I am
delighted to see the direction you are taking, what would happen? What does that
actually restrict? What is the form of its protection?
Ms. Brock — It depends on what is put into the document. Conservation easements can
be very broad in terms of what they cover, or they can be very narrow. If, in this case,
they are saying there will be absolutely no development of any kind on the property, that
would be enforceable. But somebody has to hold the easement. Either a municipality
or a not - for - profit organization typically does that, and then that holder of the easement
would be responsible for annual monitoring to make sure that the terms of the easement
are being complied with. And that can be expensive, especially if there isn't compliance
and enforcement actions need to be taken. Have you talked with the Finger Lakes Land
Trust about this to see if they would be interested in holding the easement?
Mr. Couture — No, we haven't talked to Andy about that yet, but we certainly would be
happy to if that would be the appropriate way to go. I think that as part of this
agreement, what we were hoping to do was work with you to develop what an
appropriate agreement is because I think this is the first time for the College ever
proposing something like this. So we were hoping we could work together to develop
some sort of mutual agreement on that.
Ms. Brock — The problem is the Land Trust may not be interested in this particular
parcel. They may say it's too small and it's separated by the road. Perhaps if it's
contemplated that there will be conservation easements on the wetlands as well, they
might be more interested, because now we're talking about more land with more diverse
habitat. I don't know. For the resolution for tonight, we might want to be more flexible
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 18
and say either conservation easement or deed restrictions. And that way, if you can not
find any appropriate entity that would be willing to hold it and monitor the easement,
you'd have the fallback for deed restrictions. But we really should be saying in our
resolution what it is that is being restricted. Whether it's certain trees that won't ever be
cut, or whether you're basically saying these areas will not have any development on
them...
Mr. Couture — It is our intent to preserve that area -and not develop, not use that
particular area outlined there for any future development for the College in order to
preserve the trees that are there.
Ms. Brock — So that would be in perpetuity.
Mr. Couture —Right, Yes.
Ms. Brock — It would be both of these pieces...the 1.7 acres and the .86 acres.
Board Member Erb — Does development as a word or as a phrase exclude something
like a tanbark path? Or a mulch path? Is a mulch path a development?
Ms. Brock — Well we could be more specific and say, if we're worried about structures,
and say no structures will be built...
Board Member Erb — Right because I would be perfectly comfortable if someone were
to put a path that wound around part of it. I mean ... I wouldn't necessarily feel in my
heart that I would require them to leave it wild, you know, completely untouched.
Ms. Brock — We could be more generic and say that basically either the conservation
easement or the deed restrictions would be drawn up to protect the integrity of the
natural areas.
Chairperson Howe — And to protect them from future development.
Ms. Brock - Right. So we could be more generic but then that would give us some
flexibility as Ithaca College thinks about things like paths through the area.
Board Member Erb — If that's reasonable to other people.
Chairperson Howe — Everyone okay with that? Okay.
Mr. Blaisdell — One of the other items we discussed and was included in the letter was
some of the detail. One of which was the scoreboard and just the understanding that
the College understands that there will nee to be a variance for the scoreboard just due
to its size. There's graphics in your packets on what that is, with the understanding that
the College will go back to the Zoning Board for approvals on that scoreboard.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 19
Next item was the signage on the building, just understanding that as far as the signage
goes for the building, it's been identified where all signage will go. The College has a
signage standard that they use in terms of using Helvetic Amedian letters. Typically 15
inches tall, but depending on where we are on the building and the size of this building,
it might be adjusted somewhat. We have identified at each of the main entrances.
Locations for signage either at the northwest corner of the building as you approach the
site or from the south as you would enter to the pool, or the east part of the building, the
west entrance, or the east entrance. So, each of these areas is anticipated typically
about 6 feet high and about 18 -20 wide, depending on the area that will allow for
naming rights to the building. So we recognize that we will come back before the end of
the project, before the signage goes up, because the College is still actively fundraising
for parts of this and determining what the naming opportunities will be.
Board Member Erb — But it's not going to be flashing neon lights.
Mr. Blaisdell — It will not be lit.
Mr. Couture — That's a good point, if you're up on our campus, if you look on the outside
of any of our buildings, we have the attached letters and none of them are lit up and we
don't anticipate that for the A &E Center either.
Mr. Blaisdell — I think Tim Schmalenberger was going to talk for just a second on
possibly some of the landscaping.
Mr. Schmalenberger — I'll just touch base on some of the points that were raised in
David's letter. We have got to the bottom of our labeling issue on the Sweet Spire and
that was actually also incorporated in the letter that David had sent back as a revised
plant list. So that's done. And we'll also added some additional landscaping down at
the Coddington Road entrance as well and that was illustrated, I think, in the plan that
was submitted to you as well. Again, natives, keeping it very simple, trying to kind of
add to the existing natives in that area. Nothing very flashy at all.
Board Member Erb — Okay, so maybe this is the time for me to raise my questions. The
only real planting plans are LP101 -104 and given the changing out of, for the RPM
stock, I was looking at, I was trying to find where, if at any place, in these three pages,
we had previously had Spruce, because the Spruce are going to be substituted out and
Pines are going to be in. That's the only species change.
Mr. Schmalenberger— Correct.
Board Member Erb -- And I had a lot of trouble finding where the Evergreens were.
think they may be on LP104 but they seem to be listed as PO rather than PG G.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Correct. Since the ... we reduced that and that is very small.
They're predominately in the switchback area and screen areas.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 20
Board Member Erb — Well it looks like it's the northern screen for the parking lot above
the foot switchback that leads to the building.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Correct.
Board Member Erb — Okay. So I'm not convinced those are G's that now have to be
changed out for a code for...
Mr. Schmalenberger — I think what you still may have is the old version PDF versus the
plant list that was actually submitted with Dave's letter and the drawings are still being
caught up with that.
Board Member Erb — Oh, okay, because I was still working off the LP100 plant list.
Mr. Schmalenberger — I think they passed in the night is what happened.
Board Member Erb — Okay. My issue is: the spruce typically have boughs all the way to
the ground and the pine does not, in the typical pictures... correct me if that is right or
clarify.
Mr. Schmalenberger — That can be correct. It depends really a lot on how the Pines are
planted and how they are maintained .over the years. In other words, the White Pine
can remain branch to the ground, a lot of times they get limbed -up for other plantings
below. It's clearly where we're showing Evergreens, the intent is for the screenability
year- round. That's what we're after.
Board Member Erb — That's why I went there because, don't laugh, my little Golden
Guide pictures of trees (she held up a book) it really has the spruce to the ground and
the Eastern White Pine as not being to the ground, and so, depending on where we're
putting this and whether there's any issue of these being visible at a distance to screen
a parking lot, I would want to make sure that either the pine was going to either retain its
boughs to the ground, to the greatest extent possible, or, I'd like to talk about something
else then needing to be added underneath or in front, because the screening will be
different.
Board Member Riha — I think we talked about this before but one of the issues is that
(name of a tree) is not native. So if you want to plant native vegetation, then you have
to get away ... but you have a point, that you don't have to have a Spruce tree, you could
have some Pine with some shrubs...
Mr. Schmalenberger — Right, which is what we've been showing. So we've tried to
allow those lower layers with those native shrubs massing in those screen areas and
that's what we looked at so far.
Board Member Riha — because you're trying to maintain a native look...
PB 8.19.08
Pg, 21
Mr. Schmalenberger —Yes, absolutely.
Board Member Erb — The row that looks to me like evergreens on LP 104 is not
associated with any ground shrubs and that's why I raised the point.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Let me check here...
Board Member Erb — I think the Evergreens are along the northern boundary of the
parking lot.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Correct. And at that location, we don't necessarily think since it's
in our Campus...
Board Member Erb — It's not going to be visible from the hillsides across the way, but it
might become an issue for some of the other areas where we have asked for
evergreens so there is some winter interruption of the view of the parking lot and I am
raising that issue for you now.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Correct. And I think in the other areas, what you will find is you'll
find the shrub and you'll also find the berming. Especially along the screen at the back
of the neighbors, so you'll have a layered effect.
Board Member Erb — Right but there was also some on the hill going towards the top of
that lot and if suddenly to my height and higher there were no tree limbs on an
evergreen where I thought before there were going to be, that might have become an
issue.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Okay. That is certainly not our intent...
Board Member Erb — I'm just raising it now because I noticed the change.. land the best
I could do was look at this.
Mr. Schmalenberger — And one thing, for that particular location, that you raise, which is
a good point, if you think about the Z -Lot from the neighbors below, and we are
essentially planting on this slope, certainly on top, but with the Evergreens on the slope,
if there was any natural loss of the lower branches, you still have the slope peeking
through the canopy.
Board Member Erb — But some of those Evergreens, I think, were also to interrupt the
view, put the potential view of the parking lot, from farther away.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Right, so they would be more towards the top of that
bank, .that's clearly still the intent. It's just a more native specie...
Chairperson Howe — So you're all set on this Hollis...
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 22
Board Member Erb — Yes, I just needed that point to be made so I understood what the
intent was.
Mr. Blaisdell — A couple more items we thought we would just note. We just kind of
identified that we are still looking at that in terms of when the building will be built, bid,
when we will start construction. As we get later into the construction cycle for the year,
we're looking at probably more utility work and maybe stormwater prevention issues
being done this fall and winter, with major construction starting closer to the spring. So,
that's still to be worked out, but just to be aware of when the College thinks the majority
of the construction will be underway.
A couple other items. You'll notice that we've identified in the letter the weight training
facility. With the advent of getting the variance for the plumbing fixtures for the field
house, with the addition of the pool, allowed us to eliminate the plumbing. We basically
have an underground plumbing wing in the building and we were able to convert the
saved space into a weight room for athletics. So that allows us to not have to build the
additional weight room to the southeast of the building. So we've been preserving that
in past plans, but it looks like, right now, that that can be accommodated with the weight
room as we are showing, underground.
The last thing I wanted to identify, or bring up, and then we can open it up for questions,
is we did modify the floor elevation of the building, and what we did is, we did some cut -
and4ll analysis for the site and determined that we had more earth being hauled offsite
than we preferred. So we raised the building by two feet and the field by 4 feet, which
allowed us to keep more excess earth onsite, reduce truck traffic, reduce haul off from
the sites so we could keep more of that onsite. And so that was really done to balance
the cut and fill for the overall project. To assist in that realm.
Board Member Talty — Is there any environmental impact because of that?
Board Member Erb — This actually upset me a little bit, because we've been through so
much about the appearance, visually, and now it's up higher and we hadn't planned for
that.
Mr. Blaisdell — Correct. We understood that and it was a balancing between, you
know ... it does not change what the building looks like. It does not change how high it is
above the grade, where its sitting, but it is a magnitutde of scale. If you look at the
hillside and you look at the tower dorms and you think each of those windows is about 4
feet high, for each floor and then there's 5 or 6 feet of stone in- between, if you think of
one window height, that would be the most that the field and the related lights would
raise up. The building is only raising up 2 feet. So in terms of the overall building, where
the tower is roughly 175 feet, it's just moved up 2 feet total. So that's what we're
looking at.
Board Member Erb — Okay, first of all, have the speakers been raised?
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 23
Mr. Blaisdell — The speakers would have the same relationship to the level of the field
that they had before. So if everything just simple raised by 4 feet.
Board Member Talty — But that's micro. That's a micro way of looking at it, that's not a
macro way of looking at it. I understand you're economies of scale, but when you're
looking, when you're 400 feet away or 600 feet away, it's going to have a whole different
look versus what you're saying. I understand what you're saying with the building and
the field, I understand exactly what you're saying, but I'm saying that's a micro way of
looking at it versus a macro way of looking at it. And I think what Hollis is, if I could be
so intrusive, have you garnered all your information based upon a macro way of looking
at it.
Board Member Erb — So how much higher above the existing tree -line is the view going
to be from some of the views that we would like to protect from East Hill, for instance.
Yeah, 2 feet, but that's...
Mr. Blaisdell — Right, with all of the graphic images that we did on the building, inserting
the building into the landscape, showing what it would be visible from distance vantage
points, it's within the margin of error of what those images were. When you think
about ... we understand the issue of that, but we also understand that, you know, the
trees, the surrounding trees and everything will also grow, the surrounding environment
will also grow ... so we do recognize that that is a change in terms of the overall scope of
the building, we did not think that was a major change because it was not impacting the
building design. But yes, we understand that there would be a concern with (inaudible).
Chairperson Howe — My first reaction was the same, but then I looked at the percentage
of change, and I felt that it was pretty...
Board Member Erb — Well, I'm thinking in terms of other things...we had extensive
sound analyses that were based on a noise shadow, the speakers were here and the
crest of the hill was coming over here, now the speakers are going to be another 4 feet
higher, and I'm just, I'm not sure I then understand what we are then doing to the
neighbors.
Board Member Talty — And also, did you then reduce your margin of error? Now that
you went and you raised it within the margin or error, does that mean you're going to
have a new margin of error? It does right? It's all relative, right?
Mr. Blaisdell — It could. It could. I would like to state, as far as the speaker locations go,
it does, the relationship of the speakers to the field would remain unchanged and so that
as far as how the field is addressed, it would be unchanged.
Mr. Schmalenberger — Based on the calculations, it would actually improve the noise
shadow for the neighbors, because it has to go down further. It's as if ... I am going to be
slightly misspeaking, but it's as if we've increased the height of the wall. If the edge of
the field were a wall and the neighbors were below that twenty feet or so, that neighbor
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 24
would ... the neighbors are at a fixed location and we are raising it, so the noise shadow
would be increased by 4 feet, which actually would improve the noise for the immediate
neighbors, for those specific neighbors.
Chairperson Howe — Let me just get a sense of if this is an issue for the other three
Planning Board members.
Board Member Erb — I wanted to talk it out.
Board Member Riha — I had another issue...
Board Member Talty — I think, Rod, it was more...because there was significant
discussion before and this can be, to certain people, a significant change, and I think
you're right about exploring it and discussing it, on this particular issue.
Chairperson Howe — So....
Board Member Riha — No, my issue is about something different.
Chairperson Howe — Larry?
Board Member Thayer— I don't have a problem with it.
Chairperson Howe — George?
Board Member Conneman — I was concerned about noise, always, because we had
spent so much time, a lot of speakers can be heard a long ways away.
Chairperson Howe — I'm curious if there were any Staff reactions when they saw this...
Mr. Kanter — I was away, so ....
Board Member Erb — are you going to have a lot of truck savings...
Mr. Blaisdell — We were looking at a savings of about 70,000 cubic yards by raising the
overall building and site, that could be as much as 7,000 truck loads, if it's 10 yards a
vehicle. So, we looked at that and thaought that was a significant savings in truck
traffic.
Board Member Erb — Town Engineer, does the statement about noise shadow being
even better for the local residents make sense to you?
Mr. Walker — I haven't read it, so I can't totally speak to it.
Board Member Erb — We've been given no detailed information regarding that for this
change.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 25
Mr. Walker — I have no opinion because I haven't seen any information...
Board Member Talty — I have to say it's definitely a positive impact for the neighbors
with regard to the truck traffic. It's a huge concern for the County, so I applaud that, no
question about it.
Chairperson Howe — Let's note that this is an issue. Let's see what other comments
or, ..we still have a public hearing, so we can open the public hearing and then bring it
back. Susan, what was your....
Board Member Riha — (started before the tape was flipped...) and that's about the
SWPPP, the stormwater pollution prevention plan. We've been talking about these
other issues, but we haven't seen the SWPPP which has a potential to, which is part of
the final site plan approval. And so, in some cases, we see these, with some projects
and in some cases we don't. so, to me, I'm just not clear what our responsibilities are
here. I mean, we've spent a lot of time looking at where trees are planted and not so
much time, as a Board, at stormwater pollution prevention structures and discussing
what, and in this case, we haven't seen them.
Chairperson Howe — So are you suggesting a change to the proposed resolution right
now? It says the SWPPP will go to the Director of Engineering for approval and
review...
Board Member Riha — Well, you know, on the one hand I don't object, but it seems like
we should be consistent about that. Either they should all go, or none should go.
Mr. Walker — Well they all...
Board Member Riha — They all do go to you, but... sometimes you review them and then
we look at them.
Mr. Walker — Yes, this was delivered yesterday, and my staff and I, I'm reviewing today,
right now, for the first time. The final, I mean, the basics, can they, they can provide
adequate stormwater control on this site, there's plenty of room to do that, and I'm
assuming that they have, I haven't finished the review of this, we may ask them to make
some changes to it.
Board Member Riha — Right.
Mr. Walker — I have specific responsibilities as a Stormwater Management Officer in the
MS4 to ensure that these comply with State requirements for stormwater management
which means water quantity controls and water quality controls.
Board Member Riha — Right.
Mr. Walker — And we will not allow them to violate those regulations.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 26
Board Member Riha — Right. ' So I'm all fine with that Dan, and I would want your
review, and before, as a Board member, before we made any decisions, I would want
your opinion on that, but I'm just wondering why sometimes... it's part of the site plan
approval but if the Board doesn't see it, I mean, why are we looking at particular tree
plantings or something like that. I mean, this is another component of the site plan
which, in theory, we should be at least looking at, right? I mean...
Mr. Walker -- I believe that they are probably timing it ... I don't know why the site
consultant came and delivered it yesterday, but at the same time, if you want us to hold
strictly to the letter of the law, we should not be sitting here talking about this tonight if
this had not been delivered 30 days ago.
Board Member Riha — Right.
Mr. Walker— We've been looking at this site, they've provided...
Board Member Riha — I know, we have seen some preliminary stuff in the other stuff,
right, but...
Mr. Walker .,.(inaudible) ... and this is basically the final details of that, and they showed
it on the original environmental review process, that making certain assumptions about
the development and as close as they could get to to what they had at the preliminary
stage of the building development, that they can control quantity and quality.
Board Member Riha — Right.
Mr. Walker — Now they have, well, I think it's probably not even the final, final, final
because the architects always change something.
Board Member Riha — For me, it's just more processing, because to me, the SWPPP is
serious, is important, a lot more, in my mind, a lot more important than the landscaping
plans...
Board Member Erb — That's part of the SWPPP. .I
Board Member Riha — Right, and in terms of the overall impact. So if we're looking in
detail at landscaping plans, some changes to landscaping plans, we're spending a lot of
time on that, and then we haven't sent he final ... I mean, we did see previous
landscaping plans and some of the modifications made, and we spent a lot of time
looking at those, but the SWPPP is also very important. So if there's any modifications,
maybe it makes sense for the Board to review them. Maybe not, but I'm just saying, it
seems we should be developing some consistent approach on that.
Mr. Smith — I was just going to add, even though you don't have the SWPPP, a lot of
those drawings are included in the packet that you....you did get the grading and
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 27
drainage plan, the erosion and sedimentation control utility and the detail. So a lot of
those elements still are in here as far as the actual design and the location and so on...
Chairperson Howe — So is there a specific question...
Board Member Riha — Well personally I find....no, just, I mean, I think over time we
should think about that and develop a process because I think it's been somewhat
inconsistent maybe, some people get plans late ... but, for me, the narrative really helps,
it really helps to see the narrative and look at some of the numbers and...
Mr. Walker — I think you have a lot more experience in that area than many of the other
Board members and I'm not trying to be negative about any of the Board members'
capabilities ... normally this is a technical matter that is referred to the Engineering Staff
to take care of.
Board Member Riha — Right.
Mr. Walker — But I appreciate you wanting to have that information and normally, what
we would prefer to do is have this in a better fashion so that we can review a summary
and opinion and professional opinion and...
Board Member Riha — Right, and provide that. And it's not just Ithaca College, I mean,
this has happened with Cornell on a couple of occasions too.
Chairperson Howe — So part of what you're raising is a larger process issue. So let's
note that. We'll see if you have any specific concerns and if you want to change any
resolution items as we go forward.
Board Member Riha — I think it's in the resolution that it has to meet....
Mr. Walker — That's typically what has been done by this Board on the very complex
projects, especially when there's sometimes... construction documents aren't completed
yet ... these are 75% complete now, and when they get to 100% contract documents
there's going to be ... you know ... curves are going to be changed, the sidewalk might
move, a roofline might, probably not change too much, but they might decide, ooh we
gotta...
Board Member Riha — Right, but partly what I'm thinking about here, Dan and Susan, I
mean, the drainage can be, and stormwater pollution prevention, can be a controversial
issue and so we need to maybe be able to say we are treating it consistent, our process
is consistent.
Mr. Walker — I think we are treating it consistently with a project of this complexity. One
case in point might be similar to this in area might be the Conifer Village project and we
were at about the stage, actually, we have more detail on this than I think we had on
that, because we did the full environmental impact statement that included a major
drainage evaluation. The final details of actual
issuance of building permits, which was a condition
doing it.
Board Member Riha — All right.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 28
detention facilities came before the
. That's normally how we have been
Chairperson Howe — Are there any questions or comments that you want to bring up?
We're going to open the public hearing at 8:22p.m. Can I just get a sense of if there are
folks in the room who want to address this issue before the Planning Board? Okay, if
you guys want to take a seat for a minute.
Chairperson Howe — Okay, you can come forward. And remember Joel to keep your
comments focused on this final site plan...
Joel Harlan, Newfield — Thinking about trees, why don't you build this building and put,
especially for security, put thousands of trees around that building. Make a big, thick,
dense woods out of it,. Then the trees will block the lights and part of the sound and
you lose the sight of the building. I'm talking about pine trees plus big oak trees so it will
grow 100 feet tall, a100 year trees. Bury that building and the parking lot and the fields,
then it will be out of sight and you won't have to worry about it. The trees will block the
light from the lights, dim the sound ... should bury it, put 1000's of trees. Make a forest
out of that place. Then you'll hide the whole building...
Chairperson Howe — Is there anything else besides the trees that you want to address
Joel...
Mr. Harlan — Huh?
Chairperson Howe — Anything besides trees that you want to address...
Mr. Harlan — No, I'm all out for the project but you're stalling
done. But you're all hen - picking. So I'm just telling you,
complaining about what trees, what grass, what ant hills ... I figL
your problem is after you get done with the project, make a
around that building, then you'll solve your problem with lights,
for sore eyes all over the building, the trees will block it.
Chairperson Howe — I think we..
for time. I want to get it
because you guys are
ire the best thing to solve
forest out if, all the way
noise and having a sighl
Mr. Harlan — You're arguing about ant hills already. What kind of ant hills, what kind of
stuff is this, what's gotta go here, what ...It goes on endlessly...
Chairperson Howe — Okay Joel, I think you've made your point, so thank you very
much. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on final site plan? We
will close the public hearing at 8:24 p.m.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 29
So have we addressed your issues? I think at some point we have the larger process
issue that you want to talk about separate from this proposal.
Let's go back to the height issue.
Board Member Erb — I have a couple of other things I want to clarify.
Chairperson Howe — Okay. Suggestions for...
Board Member Erb — I have to confess I was very annoyed after all the work we put into
thinking about what the visual impact, the lighting, the noise ... that to suddenly have the
building at a higher elevation...) am content that for the closest neighbors, it will
probably not be a damage to them in terms of noise. And so, I will just say that I was
very annoyed and let the remainder pass.
Chairperson Howe — Kevin, anything you want to add that you haven't said already?
Board Member Talty — I'd just like to know who got a raise with all the money you
saved. (everyone laughs)
Board Member Erb — And I am very pleased with the idea of saving thousands of
truckloads in and out as a trade -off.
Chairperson Howe —What other issues...
Board Member Erb — I had a couple things and I suspect that they're just typographic
errors, but they mean something to me. I am looking, for example at the electrical site
plan on E003a and I believe that that is our pedestrian trail.
Board Member Thayer — It says pedestrian trail...
Board Member Erb — Yes, except that when you look at insert D, it has changed the
light fixtures to the ones I don't want on the pedestrian trail. It changes their character.
It changes them ... it raises them several feet because it changes the inset in the ... the
little box in the corner suddenly says P1 b light poles instead of P2 and there's a big
height difference....
Chairperson Howe — You can come back to the table, there might be another couple of
questions like that. ..now that we have closed the public hearing....
Board Member Erb — Okay, I want, for the record, to hear that it is a typo and that
somehow we are not slipping in the difference. I mean, on the same page we have
different light poles specified for the same path.
Mr. Kanter — I would think that you would want to reference that on the resolution as a
required revision of that sheet.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 30
Board Member Erb — Yeah because those light poles are a big deal to the neighborhood
so I would really like that sheet to be clear. This is the sheet...
Mr. Blaisdell — Yeah, we're looking at it...
Board Member Erb — You found the typo....
Mr. Blaisdell — Yes...
Board Member Erb — Okay, I'm thrilled it's a typo but I think that it's a big enough deal
that when you give the detail inset, it ought to be the right one.
Chairperson Howe — Something else Hollis?
Board Member Erb — On, we don't have to turn to it, but we have a page LZ108 that
gives a prairie path section and I haven't heard of the prairie path before....
Mr. Blasidell — That is the area in front of the building towards the campus, and that is,
we've got a walkway in front of the building that, in oversimplified terms, looks like a W.
Board Member Erb — Oh, Okay, that's .... it is on the west side of the building north of the
parking lot ... I just hadn't heard that term before and I didn't understand it. And, on
LH103 and also on LH104, we're talking about striping for the crosswalks, I think, the
side material notes, under 18 and 19, on the right hand side ... and I don't understand
what "College of Ithaca Standards" are? Or did you mean Town of Ithaca standards or
NYS DOT standards? Or?
Mr. Couture — College of Ithaca standards means to us what is required under NYS
DOT. We follow those...
Board Member Erb — Okay, since you didn't say Ithaca College and I didn't know what
those standards were, I really didn't understand and pedestrian crosswalks and
pedestrian safety are important. Okay. So that's just ... Okay. In case anyone wants to
laugh, A201 and A203 can't both be east elevations.... and is the tennis ... is it correct
that the tennis wind screen, the tennis court's wind screen, will those be visible from any
public place off Ithaca College Campus?
Mr. Couture — I don't believe so...
Board Member Erb — The only reason I ask is at one point you say they're going to be
royal blue and in another place you say they are going to be black. And so I wanted to
talk color consistency if it was visible. And if you're just screwing up your own people,
then oh well...
Mr. Blaisdell — Thank you for doing quality control...
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 31
Board Member Erb — I appreciated seeing the drawing of the house -side shield. I see it
as something from where, from the back and below, I have less opportunity to see the
bulb, as I interpret the pictures. Those are the things I picked up.
Chairperson Howe — Anything on this side? Mike, is there anything that we didn't pick
up on that we need to address? Or Susan ? ??
Ms. Brock — There is, well, actually, it's in the resolution, so we'll get to it there.
Mr. Kanter — I might have missed this, but what is the difference between sheet C401
and C601 that we had separate from the big package, that were in front of us tonight? It
has a revised date on 8/18/08 but I don't remember hearing what the difference was.
Board Member Erb — One of them looks like it is the outlet structure.
Mr. Kanter— These are the grading and drainage plan and details.
Chairperson Howe — We had new sheets in front of us this evening for C401 and C601
with a revision date of 8/18/08.
Board Member Erb — The changes I caught were that on 601, outlet structure 12
changed, on the bottom center, and on 401, the only changes I caught were there was
like a specification of an end section to a pipe and then way over towards the entrance,
there was some piping and structures added in the upper right corner. Are you laughing
at me again....
Ms. Brock — I'm not, I'm in awe...
Board Member Talty — You must have been a killer as a kid, you know, like what's
different from this picture and that picture.... (everyone laughs)....
Board Member Erb — I am the editor -in -chief of my journal for twenty- and -a -half years.
But do you know, is there any substantive thing?
Mr. Blaisdell — No, not that I know of.
Board Member Erb — Okay, so they mostly seems to be just small little pieces rather
than "hi, we've picked up and completely moved a stormwater drainage practice 300
feet over there." Although the pipe, there is now a pipe or some sort of duct thing going
under the outlet road that wasn't on our former sheet.
Chairperson Howe — Would someone like to move the resolution and then we will talk
about changes.... Susan.... is there a second...
Board Member Erb — I'll second it.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 32
Chairperson Howe — Okay, Hollis....Okay, changes... where do we want to start.
Susan, do you want to start...
Ms. Brock — Sure, I think Mike has a change in the whereas clauses on page 3 that he
will provide first...
Mr. Smith — There will be a new number between 15 & 16, a new 15 in there.. we didn't
reference the last site plan modification to the F -Lot that they were in here for before.
So it needs to say something like "The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on August 5,
2008, granted site plan modification for the F -Lot extension as part of the remote
parking lot project."
Ms. Brock — And that would be new paragraph 16, and then 16 will become 17.. So
picking up on the discussion tonight, under the resolved clause on page 3, item 1 a,
revise it to say, 66 submission of a conservation easement or deed restriction to preserve
existing trees to the extent practicable for the area shown on the sheet entitled
Conservation Easement Area" and the rest will remain unchanged. So add the words,
after the "submission of a conservation easement, "or deed restrictions to preserve
existing trees to the extent practicable."
Mr. Couture — Can I just interject something for that. On the preliminary site plan
approval, there is some language about that. It says (inaudible)..for trees greater than 8
feet in diameter or which 90% are to remain in the following location." Does that
language help at all in terms of this particular resolution?
Ms. Brock — That was in the preliminary approval?
Mr. Couture — Yes.
Board Member Erb — But I don't want to lose another 10% of the trees out of this. I
thought this was the 90% that we were saving.
Mr. Couture — Right.
Board Member Erb — I mean, I interpreted it as this is where you're saying "we really are
going to try to save about 90% of the trees and it's going to be here."
Mr. Couture — That's right, absolutely.
Board Member Erb — Okay, and so by referencing sheet 1, she's referencing this picture
that we were given.
Ms. Brock — And the area shown on
Conservation Easement Area, that area is
form in the preliminary. It says "between
existing Garden Apartments."
Sheet 1, the two areas that are labeled
the same area that is described in narrative
the new Loop Road, the new field, and the
PB 8.19.08
Pg, 33
Mr. Couture — We're actually proposing a bit more than that.
Ms. Brock — Right, but it a least, at a minimum, it encompasses that area. Then I think
what we are doing is fine. I think it's actually more protective but it also gives us some
flexibility when you draft.. so if you want to .put in a path or a lean -to or something like
that we can do that.
Mr. Couture — That's great.
Board Member Erb — I think it will also make a very nice entry for you.
Ms. Brock — On the resolved clause, the different conditions, page 5, add to, after
condition o) the following 2 conditions, and these are picking up on the points that Hollis
raised tonight, "submission of revised sheet E -003a to label light poles in inset d) as P21
Hollis, does that address your concern?
Board Member Erb — Yes, that's my concern.
Ms. Brock — Okay. So that would be new condition p), and add new condition q)
"submission of revised sheets A -201 and A -203 to correct the elevation labels...
Board Member Erb — Mike has that already as b), I had forgotten that he had that, I
didn't read this before I read the package and was pleasantly amused,
Ms. Brock — Right. So strike the condition q) that I just read. That's all I have.
Mr. Walker — Just on letter n), condition n) ... we want to make sure that the SWPPP is
approved before the issuance of a building permit. I don't think it quite says that, It
says "submission of,. and review and approval by the Director of Engineering ". I don't
think it should be for ... (inaudible) ... basically, I have to ... we don't want to issue a
building permit until that SWPPP is approved....all it say is that you'd have to submit the
plan, if you read that language that way,
Ms. Brock — So we could say "for review of, and approval is obtained by, or..,,
Board Member Erb — Why not just say "submission and approval "?
Mr. Walker — No, because I'm not going to submit it. I
Board Member Erb — Okay, that's right....
Board Member Riha — Approval of a complete SWPPP and ....
Mr. Walker = Actually, they have submitted a pollution prevention plan already, so why
don't we just change that to "review and approval of the SWPPP prior to the issuance of
a building permit" because they've submitted it.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 34
Board Member Erb — So review and approval....
Chairperson Howe — I love wordsmithing by group....
Ms. Brock — But how do you know that what you have received is complete? Have you
already made that determination?
Mr. Walker — It will be before we are done with our review.
Ms. Brock — But we should really keep in the requirement that they submit a complete...
Mr. Walker — It's not going to get approved until it's complete and we are probably going
to get comments and I will probably have to amend a few things on it.
Ms. Brock — Okay.
Mr. Walker — That's part of the process.
Ms. Neilsen — So what is the actual change please.
Mr. Walker — Just say "review and approval of the complete stormwater pollution plan
by the Director of Engineering prior to the issuance of a building permit." We can put
that Phase I in there too...
Ms. Brock — Can you just read her the text please.
Mr. Walker — Just instead of saying submission of.., just say "review and approval by the
Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering of the complete stormwater pollution prevention
plan." In other words, just take the "review and approval" and replace "submission of a
complete "...with "review and approval by the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering of
the complete...."
Ms. Brock — And then would you keep the rest of that....
Mr. Walker — Yeah, the for review and approval ....is what you're going to move up.
Ms. Neilsen — Okay.
Mr. Walker — Because when this was written, they hadn't submitted it yet.
Chairperson Howe — Any other changes?
Mr. Kanter — I think we have to reference these revised sheets, C401 and C601 that we
received, with the revision dates, probably in at least whereas number 16 and resolved
number 1....
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 35
Ms. Brock — So put it after the reference of the revised planning schedules dated July
31, 2008....say "and revised sheets C401 Grading and Drainage Plan and C601
Details, revised 8/18/081" So you would put that into 17 where I indicated and also put it
in the same location in the first resolved clause.
Chairperson Howe — Okay. Any other changes? Are those changes acceptable
(yes)...all those in favor, please raise your hand.... unanimous. Thank you.
Mr. Couture — And Rod, can I, for the minutes ... on behalf of Ithaca College, we want to
thank all of you, Town Staff, Members, for all of your help in getting us through this
process. We have a long ways to go, but it was a great process and we appreciate
everything you've all done and your time.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 074
Final Site Plan Approval, Recommendation to the
ZBA Regarding Sign Variances (scoreboard), and
Site Plan Modification of the Remote Parking
Project (plant schedule)
Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center,
Phase 1 A
Ithaca College Campus Near Coddington Road
Tax Parcel No.'s 41-1 -30.2, 41 -1 -119 41 -1 -12.2, 41-
1-24, and 42 -1 -9.2
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 19, 2008
Motion made by Susan Riha, seconded by Hollis Erb.
WHEREAS:
1. This project involves consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center and a
recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign
variances for the proposed outdoor scoreboard, located on the eastern side of
the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -111 41 -1 -12.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2,
Medium Density Residential Zone. Phase 1A includes the field house, a rowing
facility, weight training facilities, the aquatics center, a landscaped plaza, six
outdoor tennis courts, and an all- weather turf field with seating and lighting. This
phase will also include new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and
walkways, new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and
landscaping throughout the project. The applicant is also requesting a Site Plan
modification to the Remote Parking Project, a part of the Phase 1A of the Ithaca
College Athletics and Events Center project, to modify the previously approved
planting schedule. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent.
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 36
2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board and height variances by the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type 1 action pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca
Code regarding Environmental Quality Review; and
3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on February 6, 2007, declared its intent to
serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed
Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project; and
4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental
assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Ithaca College, and Parts 2 and 3
of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, established itself as lead agency
to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Ithaca College athletics
and Events Center, as described above, and issued a positive determination of
environmental significance at its meeting on March 6, 2007, in accordance with
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as
proposed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
will be prepared; and
59 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on May 1,
2007 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies
regarding the scope and content of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and
Events Center, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially
involved and interested agencies and the public; and
6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 15, 2007, accepted the revised Final
Scoping Document (dated May 9, 2007) and amended by the Planning Board. at
its meeting on May 15, 2007, as being adequate to define the scope and content
of the DEIS for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center; and
7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the DEIS (dated November 27,
2007 and amended January 8, 2008, January 15, 2008 and January 22, 2008,
with further changes as discussed at the January 22, 2008 Town Planning Board
meeting) as complete on January 22, 2008; and
8. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the DEIS on
March 4, 2008, and accepted written comments on the DEIS until March 14,
2008; and
9. The applicants prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated
April 3, 2008, regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events
Center, and submitted said FEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for
consideration of acceptance as complete; and
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 37
10. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on April 22, 2008, accepted the FEIS, dated
April 3, 2008 and revised on April 22, 2008, for the Ithaca College Athletics and
Events Center, as complete; and
11. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has filed a Notice of Completion of FEIS,
issued the FEIS, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies
and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12; and
12. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency, on May 20, 2008, did adopt
the Findings Statement for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca
College Athletics and Events Center; and
13. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 20, 2008, granted Preliminary Site
Plan Approval and Special Permit for the Ithaca College Athletics & Events
Center, Phase 1A, with conditions, and
14. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on May 20, 2008, granted Final Site Plan
Approval for the Remote Parking Project, as a part of the Athletics & Events
Center Phase 1A project, and
15. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, on June 16, 2008, granted height
variances for the proposed project, and
16. Town of Ithaca Planning Board on August 5, 2008 granted site plan modification
for the F -Lot extension as part of the remote parking lot project, and
174 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 19,
2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans included in bound packets
titled "Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center" and labeled "Final Site Plan
Review July — 18 — 08° prepared by Moody Nolan, Inc, P.C. and T.G. Miller P.C.,
plans titled "Outdoor Scoreboards — Installation Specifications, MS -2918° dated
25 Jul 02, prepared by Daktronics, Inc., "Conservation Easement Plan" dated
7/18108, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., and revised planting schedules titled
"Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center Plant Substitutions" and "Ithaca
College Remote Parking Project Plant Substitutions" dated July 31, 2008, and
revised sheet C401 Grading and Drainage and C601 Details revised August 18,
2008, and other application material.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval
for the construction of Phase 1A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events
Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the
Coddington Road entrance, as shown on plans included in bound packets titled
"Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center" and labeled "Final Site Plan Review
July — 18 — 08 " prepared by Moody Nolan, Inc, P.C. and T.G. Miller P.C., plans
PB 8.1 9.08
Pg. 38
titled "Outdoor Scoreboards — Installation Specifications, MS- 2918" dated 25 Jul
02, prepared by Daktronics, Inc., "Conservation Easement Plan" dated 7118108,
prepared by T.G.Miller P.C., and revised planting schedules titled "Ithaca College
Athletics and Events Center Plant Substitutions" dated July 31, 2008, and revised
sheet C401 Grading and Drainage and C601 Details revised August 18, 2008,
subject to the following conditions:
a. submission of a conservation easement or deed restriction to preserve
existing trees to the extent practicable for the area shown on the sheet
titled "Conservation Easement Area" (Sheet 1), for review and approval of
the Town Attorney, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy,
and
b, submission of revised sheets "A -201" and "A -203" (elevations) to include
accurate labeling of the East and West elevations, prior to the issuance of
a building permit, and
C, submission of a revised Sheet LP -100 of the Ithaca College Athletics &
Events Center Final Site Plan Review, to include the revised planting
schedule, and to revise the labeling (code) of Sweetspire as "IT vi" as
shown on the various planting plans, prior to the issuance of a building
permit, and
d, granting of the necessary sign variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals for the proposed scoreboard, prior to issuance of a sign
permit, and
e. submission of locations, designs, and details of any proposed signage
associated with the project, prior to issuance of any sign permits, and
f. revision of plans to include the name and seal of each registered land
surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared any of
the site plan materials, including topographic and boundary surveys,
drainage plans, etc., prior to issuance of a building permit, and
g. submission of a formal Traffic Control Plan outlining procedures for traffic
management on campus during large events, including the blocking of the
Coddington Road campus exit, prior to any Certificate of Occupancy, and
h. all permanent stormwater facilities shall be included in the stormwater
"Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between Ithaca
College and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Town Attorney and the
Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of
Occupancy, and
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 39
i. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary
permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, and
j. noise from large events is to be monitored by Ithaca College for a period
of one year from the completion of the project, with a report of the results
submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, and
k, an additional site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will
be required for the wetland mitigation once the location, size, and design
of the replacement wetlands are finalized, including a long -term
maintenance and monitoring plan, prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of
Occupancy, and
I. if blasting is to occur during construction, in addition to any other
requirements, notification of adjacent neighbors is required, and
M, the proposed measures and mitigations in the EIS must be utilized for the
following; construction traffic, dust, construction noise, identification and
transplanting of rare, scarce or endangered plant species, roof materials
and color, outdoor lighting and noise associated with the facilities, and.
n. review and approval by the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering of the
complete Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a
stormwater facilities monitoring plan for the entire Phase 1A development,
prior to issuance of a building permit, and
o, no construction is to occur during summer holiday weekends (Memorial
Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day).
p. submission of a revised sheet E -003a to label light poles in inset D as P2.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review
Board, hereby recommends the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals approve the
request for sign variances for the installation of a scoreboard as part of Phase 1A of the
Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Modification for the
Remote Parking Project, as a part of the Ithaca College Athletics & Events Center
Phase 1A project, to modify the previously approved planting schedule, as shown on
the revised planting schedule titled "Ithaca College Remote Parking Project Plant
Substitutions" dated July 31, 2008, subject to the following condition:
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 40
a, submission of a revised Sheet LP -100 of the Ithaca College "Remote
Parking Project ", to include the revised planting schedule.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairperson Howe announces the next agenda item.
Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cornell University Energy
Recovery Linac (ERL) project located north of the Pine Tree Road and Dryden
Road (NYS Route 366) intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63=11=8.2,63=11m
2s2v 63 =1 -121 63 -1 -11 and 63- 1 -3.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal
P
nvolves construction of an underg_round accelerator tunnel (14 -foot diameter and
2 km long), a cryogenic facility and associated electric substation ( +l- 15,000
square foot footprint), and an extension to the existing Wilson Laboratory W.
185,000 gross square feet of building space). The project will also involve new
stormwater facilities. oarkina. outdoor liahting. and landscaping. Cornell
niversity. Owner: Steve Bevers. P.E.. Engineering Services Leader
Ms. Brock — I'm conflicted out of advising the Board on this project because my
husband is a co- principal investigator for the project, and he's designed parts of it and is
very heavily involved in trying to secure the grant funding for it. So, hopefully tonight,
because it's sketch plan review, that won't matter anyway, and we'll have to figure out,
as the Board continues to review the project, how we'll handle that in the future. But, I
will not be saying anything to you about the project, and I won't be able to give you any
advice on it.
Steve Beyers, Cornell University, Office of Environmental Compliance and
Sustainability, 395 Pine Tree Road Dr. Don Bilderback, Assistant Director of Cornell
High Energy Synctron Source (CHESS)
Presentation given (Attachment #2) A physical model was also available.
Highlights
Add a new building, Cryoplant and Tunnel Extension as well as continued use of
the Wilson Lab
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 41
Convert the existing underground ring into a energy recovery linac by reusing the
tunnel, extending it and adding a lab extension. This is where the energy beams
would be.
It would be powered by a new complex with super - conducting radio frequency
accelerators called a Linac. The equipment needs to be in the tunnel.
The College has a prototype in the basement of Wilson Lab which has been
going on for a while.
Once the prototype is finished, within the next few months, the College will be
applying for a grant from the National Science Foundation for about a half - billion
dollars.
The College is in competition for the grant with the State of Wisconsin who also
wants to upgrade their synctron in a different way.
There is a definite timeline /deadline to the process.
There is nothing like this anywhere else. The College is very, very excited about
the opportunity to lead the world in this area.
It is a powerful, focused form of x -ray to study molecules and atoms in 3D as well
as looking at catalysts in action, to put it very, very simply.
The building will be built into the hillside and the tunnel extended. This will be
done by boring.
The project is part of the Cornell Master Plan
They will have to close Judd Falls Road again.
It will ensure the 200 present jobs will continue and add approximately 20 new
jobs as well as many more visitors.
Visually, the new building will be set into a hillside and it should not have a large
impact.
Public Outreach /Education has already started.
The proposed schedule is very ambitious. The
very, very optimistic. The College responded
timeframe and serious competition for the major
Foundation. They will submit regardless and
Foundation as things progress. The College estii
about 2012 with completion in 2018.
Board warned them that it was
that unfortunately, there is a
grant with the National Science
update the National Science
rates construction starting in or
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 42
Board Comments /Questions.
Asked whether there was a possibility of underground parking. They hadn't
thought about that, but would put it on "the list."
Asked about soil types. There is a mix and the College wants to have an earth -
pressure balance machine for the boring to keep water away and is very cutting
edge. They do not foresee any issues with altering existing water tables.
The Board was very interested in a site visit.
The Board asked about safety. The College responded
the x -ray in the hospital, when power is "unplugged"
There is no permanent radioactivity left over like one
reactor. They have been doing this on campus for o
extensive safety protocols. The radiation present in the
level is more than they allow people around,
that this machine is like
everything goes away.
might find at a nuclear
ver 40 years and have
atmosphere at airplane
Security issues were raised. The College responded that it is an open lab, but
there is security in place to keep people from "wandering" into exposure areas.
And again, this has been going on for 25 years. There are no "dirty bomb" type
of materials, just an abundance of electrical power.
The construction and road closing(s) will be a major obstacle.
There was not enough material to make an environmental impact decision. i.e.
negative or positive. Mr. Kanter thought there probably would be enough to
require a full environmental impact statement.
Traffic reports were discussed and suggestions given regarding the
thoroughness and importance of good traffic analysis.
Because this is a 10 -year project, there will be turnover with different views and
comments.
The brochure was very helpful and due to the scientific nature, keeping it simple
will really help.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 075
Lead Agency Designation
Cornell University Energy Recovery Linac
Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -8.2, 63- 1 -2.2, 63 -1 -12, 63-1-
3.1, and 63 -1 -3.3
Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) at Wilson Lab
Entrance
Planning Board, August 19, 2008
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 43
Motion made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman,
WHEREAS:
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed Cornell University Energy Recovery Linac (ERL) project located north
of the Pine Tree Road and Dryden Road (NYS Route 366) intersection (at Wilson
Lab Entrance), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -8.2, 63- 1 -2.2, 63 -1 -12, 63-
1 -3.1 and 63- 1 -3.3, Low Density Residential Zone (LDR). The proposal involves
construction of an underground accelerator tunnel (14 -foot diameter and 2 km
long), a cryogenic facility and associated electric substation ( +/- 15,000 square
foot footprint), and an extension to the existing Wilson Laboratory ( +/- 185,000
gross square feet of building space). The project will also involve new
stormwater facilities, parking, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Cornell
University, Owner; Steve Beyers, P.E. (Engineering Services Leader), Agent
21 The proposed site plan approval and special permit by the Planning Board and
height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals are Type I actions pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter
148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review,
because the proposal involves the construction of a nonresidential facility with
more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area, and
3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1 with attachments, and additional
application materials have been submitted by the applicant for the above=
described action,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead
agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed site plan approval,
special permit, and possible variances for the proposed Cornell University Energy
Recovery Linac, along with other actions that may be taken by involved agencies, if any,
in conjunction with the proposal, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved
agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification
of the involved agencies.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb
PB 8.19.08
Pg. 44
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes: August 5, 2008.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
PB RESOLUTION No. 2008 — 076
Approval of Minutes — August 5, 2008
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
August 19, 2008
Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on
August 5, 2008, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the
final minutes of the meetings on August 5, 2008.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
Ayes: Howe, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, Talty and Erb
Nays: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Other Business:
Reports of Committees
Next Agenda
Rod Howe will not be at the next meeting. (9 -16 -2008)
Meeting adjourned.
rauicuU iNen5eli
Deputy Town Clerk
CD
f-4-•
O
r
d "'y
� o
z�
r
�r
n
0
w
0
ON
CD
n
CD
�1
O
■
V 1
N
CD
rD
0
0
0
FA
0
cD
0
a
0
c�
0
0
FAJ
m
M�J
CD
N
b
O
CD
O
O
Eco:
MOP
/r
0
0
e=i-
b
ow
0
A
M
O
A
'r
O
'zo 1, r 41y .. c _
;,liesout
04
Mae
fop
or
+ i 114
Owl 0
ot
Or
o � �i • ice/ � a � , �,�••- , - s .
y
It
. .
4tl
Au
oil
.�,rt- _. • qw + '' � -.'., r•4 � iCA r� _j �� •,* os h,S j �`���� � P ,'Y �� - #� +
- 4 •4. ,.
F
•
•
�r
• fi S
j / r1
4
o ✓' 1 S 1_y'
—
q r
f
lk
�r
C
V
0
0
(n
(D
r
Q-
1
7�
0
0
V)
k-o�
r-+
dip
1
�J
z�
0
CD
ml
W
0
0
mn
CD
cr
C
' 1!
+y j*4�� _
f.� 4
'JM
rM' F
�iC IL w A
s� r
s
1 h '
C�
C7
N
CD
A�
N
�1
O
lV
O
0
-v
r.
b�
rA,M- 0
N
I `+
A,
n
r
O
C
k
b
I `+
A,
■
CD
0
0
0
\ L
h�
0
V
■
C
0
•
9
■
0
i
p
0
VluTl J
Y'
■ ■
� V
■
�i
w
0
z
-c
n
■ 0
0 0
cD
■
FA
0
0
rD
V
z
m
P&
CD
z
-c
■
W
c�
0
r�
V �
p
V J
r
N
CD
A�
O
OMMW
ow
P�
b
V
V
�a
!
w
'
-
° 5.�
<§
w
NUM
ou
�1�.7r11btq- t
.r.
4�
O
P p„
O
b
A�
0
J
N
. �t
J
n
0
�C
y
Attachment #1 PB 8/19/200!
■
O
C
O
d
a
O
O
CD
C
CD
r+
n
■
O
F
d
n
CA
CD
P.
■
O
CTl
e.
O
CD
O
C
O
■
n
O
d
CD
■
d
z
ib
b
d
■
rTl
C,
O
CD
~d
O
n
O
U4
CD
n
�C
p
ITI
C
CAD
C.
■
O
O
Cf4 .
CAD
WAY
e�
i
i�
cr
CD
�mt
Cr
p..
7�
b
4
C/1
C/�
cn
►._► .
CL
CTQ
r+
�
►�
r-r-
�
CD
�
�-•�
CT4
CD
P•
CD
CD
•
.
v
o
C�
�
o
c
�
�
c
O
V
��
Ir
T�
l V
r�
r
�J
O
O
p..
7�
b
4
C/1
C/�
46
►
�\ \ \ \. \�
\� ; \<
a /�e /\ ' ]
. w . :/� \ � / * § f`
LF
0
PP
F
0
0
1
O
0
0
z
bl—bbo.q-
V c
INC
INC
0
z
4
rTl
n
O
N
r
r
n
r
0
n
K
0
a.
w
ommi
�D
CD
l 1
PP
F
0
0
1
O
0
0
z
bl—bbo.q-
V c
INC
INC
0
z
4
rTl
n
O
N
r
r
n
r
0
n
K
0
a.
w
ommi
�D
Planning Board 8/19/2008
Attachment #2
9/23/05 Draft CFPC Presentation Slide 1
9/23/05 Draft CFPC Presentation Slide 2
How the ERL Works
• Electrons produced by photo- cathode source are
accelerated in the linear accelerator and travel one loop
around the machine
• Magnets oscillate the electrons, causing them to emit X-
rays for scientific experiments at up to 18 lab stations
• ERL recovers & reuses over 99.98% of the energy from
each batch of electrons
(0 Cornell University
Major Project Elements
*Reuse existing Storage Ring
*Add new 12' diameter tunnel - ARUP is our A/E Firm
Earth Pressure Balanced
Tunneling Machine
it
y 'A 1
r
EPBM breaking through North Dorchester CSO tunnel in
Boston, August 13, 2008 from Gregg Korbin of the
Cornell ERL Underground Tunneling Advisory Panel
9/23/05 Draft CFPC Presentation Slide 4
e —
' ^-- Cryogen'
Cascap�H East Lab
__$Creek _ Extension
9/23/05 Draft CFPC Presentation
Proposed Facim
Physical Model I
(facing west)
(t Cornell University
Visual impacts and building materials
*Just beginning to review the architects design for the building exterior
-Presently consists of masonry on the lowest level
,Metal and glass of various shades and textures of green
-Multi-tiered green roofs
*Building colors. textures are designed to harmonize with a gorge setting while
maintaining vistas above the building line.
o:
Cornell University
Current Activities
• Presently prototyping (2005 -2009) first accelerating stages, 18M$ NSF
including design, engineering and prototyping of specialized equipment
• Proposal preparation with 12M$ from New York State including
engineering /architectural design of buildings, tunnels. Expect at least LEED
silver certification
• Planning for utility upgrades needed
• Working with Campus Planning Office, University Architect, Cornell
Plantations, PDC and others to make sure our plans and structures are
pleasing and environmentally sound
• Beginning LEAF submission process
• Moving to the next level of community awareness
itCornell University
ERL Project Benefits
• Renew and sustain the accelerator and x -ray facility
• Generate new & advanced research
• Train new generations of students
• Continue Cornell's scientific leadership and excellence
in accelerator and x -ray science
• Create and maintain high -tech jobs in upstate New York
— support 200 existing & 20 new full -time positions
• Attract world -class science to Ithaca
• Inject an estimated $113 into local & regional economies
over a 15 year period
0 Cornell University
Proposed Schedule
• Town Site Plan Application & LEAF to initiate SEAR — Mid `08
• SEQR Lead Agency Determination — Sept. `08
• Preliminary Site Plan Approval (Winter 2008 -2009)
• Funding App to National Science Foundation (NSF) — End 2008
• Submit Final Site Plan Application — TBD -(After NSF Approval)
• Construction Begins — 2012
• Construction Completed /Commissioning Begins — 2017
• Facility in Full Operation — 2018
(0 Cornell University
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes)
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Radio Group Radio Facility, Mecklenburg Road,
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Radio
Group Radio Facility located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) across from Rachel
Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural Zone. The project
involves placing an antenna on a new 35 +/- foot tall wooden pole and installing a 2' x 3'
weatherproof equipment box at the base of the pole for the purpose of providing a 250
watt FM translator to rebroadcast / simulcast the WHCU 870 AM signal to the
community for emergency purposes. John Rancich, Owner; Cayuga Radio Group,
Applicant; Susan Johnston, President, General Manger, Agent.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Little Brook Farm - Equestrian Facility, 340 Warren Road,
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the continued operation of
Little Brook Farms located at 340 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -2,
Low Density Residential Zone. The farm operation includes facilities to board and train
horses (average of 12 horses /ponies) and to conduct riding lessons (average of 6 lessons
per week). This is a seasonal operation, operating from May through November at 340
Warren Road. This equestrian facility previously operated under a time - limited use
variance last granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2001, expiring in July 2008.
Gary and Donna Duffy, Owners /Applicants,
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Phase
1 A of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center and a recommendation to the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed outdoor
scoreboard, located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington
Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 414 -11, 41 -1 -12.2,
41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. Phase 1 A includes the field
house, a rowing facility, weight training facilities, the aquatics center, a landscaped plaza,
six outdoor tennis courts, and an all- weather turf field with seating and lighting. This
phase will also include new and expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways,
new and expanded stormwater facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the
project. The applicant is also requesting a Site Plan modification to the Remote Parking
Project, a part of the Phase I of the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project,
to modify the previously approved planting schedule. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant;
Richard Couture, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cornell University Energy Recovery
Linac (ERL) project located north of the Pine Tree Road and Dryden Road (NYS Route
366) intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -8.2, 63- 1 -2.2, 63 -1 -12, 63 -1 -3.1
and 63- 1 -3.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves construction of an
underground accelerator tunnel (14 -foot diameter and 2 km long), a cryogenic facility
and associated electric substation ( +/- 15,000 square foot footprint), and an extension to
the existing Wilson Laboratory ( +/- 185,000 gross square feet of building space). The
project will also involve new stormwater facilities, parking, outdoor lighting, and
landscaping. Cornell University, Owner; Steve Beyers, P.E., Engineering Services
Leader, Agent,
8. Approval of Minutes: August 5, 2008,
9, Other Business:
10. Adjournment,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17479
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, August 19.2008
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will
be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, August 19, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Radio Group Radio Facility
located on Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) across from Rachel Carson Way, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural Zone. The project involves placing an antenna
on a new 35 +/- foot tall wooden pole and installing a 2' x 3' weatherproof equipment box at
the base of the pole for the purpose of providing a 250 watt FM translator to rebroadcast /
simulcast the WHCU 870 AM signal to the community for emergency purposes. John
Rancich, Owner; Cayuga Radio Group, Applicant; Susan Johnston, President, General
Manger, Agent,
7:15 P.M. Consideration of Special Permit for the continued operation of Little Brook Farms located at
340 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone.
The farm operation includes facilities to board and train horses (average of 12 horses /ponies)
and to conduct riding lessons (average of 6 lessons per week). This is a seasonal operation,
operating from May through November at 340 Warren Road. This equestrian facility
previously operated under a time - limited use variance last granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals in 2001, expiring in July 2008. Gary and Donna Duffy, Owners /Applicants.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Phase lA of the Ithaca College
Athletics and Events Center and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed outdoor scoreboard, located on the eastern
side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -141, 41 -1 -12.21 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium
Density Residential Zone. Phase IA includes the Feld house, a rowing facility, weight
training facilities, the aquatics center, a landscaped plaza, six outdoor tennis courts, and an
all- weather turf Feld with seating and lighting. This phase will also include new and
expanded parking facilities, new roads and walkways, new and expanded stormwater
facilities, and new lighting and landscaping throughout the project. The applicant is also
requesting a Site Plan modification to the Remote Parking Project, a part of the Phase I of
the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, to modify the previously approved
planting schedule. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or
other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must
make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, August 11, 2008
Publish: Wednesday, August 13, 2008
WedriesdAy, August pt 2008 ] TIiE,ITHACA JOURNAL
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North .Tioga Street
August 19, 2008
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SIGN -IN
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
Name
F) c.11
a w1,%'2D 81�A ! 'M&L
y4c
C K C�O E iry t1�
fi' 1pftv-etf
I
Address
2 O2
V4 k CCA
LcG 61%
0
H60
l(WC4 UGCOte 'C1 ^J Z/41 /SY llilkl
1O%e�
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York, on Tuesday, Au"st 19, 2008
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
August 11, 2008
August 13, 2008
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13`h day of August 2008,
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 I O
kA