HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-07-07FILE ei4�
DATE og a� -ZOD�
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2009
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK
Board Members Present
Rod Howe, Chairperson; George Conneman, Kevin Talty, Jon Bosak, .Susan Riha,
Hollis Erb, Ellen Baer, Alternate.
Excused
Fred Wilcox,
Staff Present .
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Kristin
Taylor, Civil Engineer; Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk
Call to Order
Chairperson Howe declared the meeting duly opened at 7:02 p.m., and accepted for the
record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public
Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 29, 2009 and July 1, 2009,
together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the
City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and/or agents, as appropriate, on July 1, 2009.
AGENDA ITEM
Persons to be heard
None.
AGENDA ITEM
SEOR, Cayuga Medical Center Outdoor Recreation Area, 101 Harris B. Dates Dr.
And
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for
the proposed Cayuga Medical Center (CIVIC) Outdoor Recreation Area located at
101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Office Park
Commercial Zone. The project involves expanding an existing garden behind the
hospital building with a 35' x 40' paved area for basketball, a retaining wall, and
new plantings. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly
Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects LLP, Agent.
PB 7n/2oos
Page 2 of 34
Kim Michaels appeared before the Board with Lou LoVecchio, Assistant Vice President
of Cayuga Medical Center. Ms. Michaels gave a brief overview of the proposed project.
She orientated the Board to the project site using maps provided- in Board packets.
Chairperson Howe noted that there will be some site disturbance during construction,
but the applicant has proposed protection measures before and after construction. Ms.
Michaels explained that the area of disturbance is small and they have proposed to
install silt fencing to prevent runoff. Chairperson Howe asked if Ms. Michaels was
aware of any other environmental issues and she was not.
Chairperson Howe solicited questions from the Board. Board Member Erb asked if it
was a mandate from an agency that the program have a recreation area. Mr.
LoVecchio explained that it is requirement of the NYS Department of Mental Health.
Board Member Erb followed up by asking if the area would be functional during the
winter. Mr. LoVecchio responded that the area is functional for at least three seasons.
Board Member Erb asked if there would be a railing along the top of the retaining wall.
Ms. Michaels responded that there would be a guard rail along the retaining wall, but it
was not a hand rail.
Board Member Erb moved and Board Member Conneman seconded the proposed
SEQR resolution. With no discussion, Chairperson Howe called for a vote -- carried
unanimously.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-056: SEOR. Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
& Special Permit. Caw= Medical Center Outdoor Recreation Area, Tax Parcel
No. 24.- 3 -2.1. 101 Harris B. Dates Drive
MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
and Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) Outdoor
Recreation Area located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 24- 3 -2.1, Office Park Commercial. The project involves expanding an
existing garden behind the hospital building with a 35' x 40' paved area for
basketball, a retaining wall, and new plantings. Cayuga Medical Center at
Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape
Architects LLP, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site
Plan Approval and Special Permit, and
PB 7/7/2009
Page 3 of 34
3. The Planning Board, on July 7, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, the following plans: Key Map dated May
2009, Demolition and Layout Plan L101, dated May 28, 2009, Grading and
Landscape Plan L201, dated May 28, 2009, Details L301, dated May 5, 2009,
and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit,
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 Il, and, therefore, a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Howe opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. and invited the public to
address the Board. He then solicited questions from the Board regarding site plan.
Mr. Bates asked if the project site was for in- patients, out - patients, or both. Ms.
Michaels said that the area would be used for in- patients of the adolescent psychology
department.
Board Member Tatty noted that lighting was not showed on the plan so -he assumed that
the area would only be used during the day. Ms. Michaels confirmed that was correct.
Chairperson Howe closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Board Member Riha moved
and Alternate Board Member Baer seconded the proposed resolution. With no
discussion, Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-057.- Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval &
Special Permit, Can= Medical Center Outdoor Recreation Area, Tax Parcel No.
24.- 3 -2.1, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive
MOTION made by Susan Riha, seconded by Ellen Baer.
PB 7/7/2009
Page 4 of 34
WHEREAS:
1. This project involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
and Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) Outdoor
Recreation Area located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 24- 3 -2.1, Office Park Commercial. The - project involves expanding an
existing garden behind the hospital building with a 35' x 40' paved area for
basketball, a retaining wall, and new plantings. Cayuga Medical Center at
Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape
Architects LLP, 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 July 7,
2009, 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 11 prepared by Town Planning staff,
and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 7, 2009, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate application materials, including the following plans: Key
Map dated May 2009, Demolition and Layout Plan L101, dated May 28, 2009,
Grading and Landscape Plan L201, dated May 28, 2009, Details L301, dated
May 5, 2009, and other application materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga
Medical Center Outdoor Recreation Area 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed use of the property at Cayuga Medical Center
(CMC) Outdoor Recreation Area located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Office Park Commercial, as described in the
following plans: Key Map dated May 2009, Demolition and Layout Plan L101,
dated May 28, 2009, Grading and Landscape Plan L201, dated May 28, 2009,
Details L301, dated May 5, 2009, subject to the following condition:
PB 7 /72009
Page 5 of 34
a. submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or
paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer,
architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Talty, Erb.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM
SEOR, Inlet Valley Homeowners Association 2 -Lot Subdivision, Calkins Rd.
And
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval regarding the
proposed 2 -lot subdivision located on Calkins Road at the entrance to the Inlet
Valley Homeowners Association ( IVHOA) private road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 33- 1 -4.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.91
acre parcel along Calkins Road from the +/- 56.40 acre IVHOA property. The 0.91
acre parcel contains an existing barn which will be sold to an adjacent landowner
for agricultural purposes. Inlet Valley Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Walsh, True, Walsh & Schubert, LLP, Agent.
Kevin MacAfee (sp ?), President of the Inlet Valley Homeowners Association, appeared
before the Board and gave a brief explanation of the application before the Board. He
stated that the first issue deals with setback requirements and the second deals with
insufficient lot area. The Association intends to sell the parcel to the a local landowner.
The buyer wishes to return the parcel to an agriculture use. The buyer intends to
consolidate the parcel with his existing parcel.
Chairperson Howe asked Ms. Kiley if she had any comments. Ms. Kiley explained the
options outlined in her memo to the Board (provided in Board packets). Chairperson
Howe noted that the proposed resolution includes a condition that the parcel be
consolidated.
Chairperson Howe solicited questions from the Board. Board Member Bosak
summarized that with the consolidation of the parcel it becomes a single piece of
property and the section of the road is an easement over the parcel. Ms. Kiley
confirmed the summary to be correct. Board briefly discussed the ownership of an
adjoining property.
PB 7 /72009
Page 6 of 34
Board Member Erb asked where the homeowner association's tractor will be stored
after the property is purchased. Mr. MacAfee explained that the association has an
arrangement with Mr. Sheldrake to continue storing the tractor in the barn until another
location is found. Board Member Erb supported the barn being returned to agricultural
ownership.
Board Member Talty moved and Board Member Erb seconded the proposed SEQR
resolution. With no discussion, Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried
unanimously—
P8 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-058: SEOR. Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, IVHOA/Sheldrake 2 -Lot Subdivision, Calkins Road, Tax Parcel No. 33.-
1 -4.2
MOTION made by Kevin Tally, seconded by Hollis Erb.
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval from the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board regarding the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located
on Calkins Road at the entrance to the Inlet Valley Homeowners Association
(IVHOA) private road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.4-4.2, Agricultural
Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.91 acre parcel along Calkins
Road from the +/- 56.40 acre IVHOA property. The +/- 0.91 acre parcel contains
an existing barn which will be sold to an adjacent landowner for agricultural
purposes. Inlet Valley Homeowners Association, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Peter J.
Walsh, True, Walsh & Schubert, LLP, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to
Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on July 7, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map
Showing Parcel to be Conveyed by Inlet Valley Homeowners Association, Inc
located on Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared
by TG Miller PC, July 8, 2008, and other application materials, and
4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment
PB 7/7/2009.
Page 7 of 34
Form Part 11 referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote, on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Howe opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. and invited the public to
address the Board —none. He then solicited questions from the Board —none.
Chairperson Howe closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
Board Member Conneman moved and Board Member Erb seconded the proposed
resolution. Chairperson. Howe suggested minor grammatical changes to the resolution.
Board agreed. Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis, Erb.
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval from the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board regarding the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located
on Calkins Road at the entrance to the Inlet Valley Homeowners Association
(IVHOA) private road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.4-4.2, Agricultural
Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.91 acre parcel along Calkins
Road from the +/- 56.40 acre IVHOA property. The +/- 0.91 acre parcel contains
an existing barn which will be sold to an adjacent landowner for agricultural
purposes. Inlet Valley Homeowners Association, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Peter J.
Walsh, True, Walsh & Schubert, LLP, 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 Subdivision Approval, has
on July 7, 2009, 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 Part 11 prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board on April 7, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 prepared by the Town .Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey Map
PB 717/2009
Page 8 of 34
Showing Parcel to be Conveyed by Inlet Valley Homeowners Association, Inc
located on Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared
by TG Miller PC, July 8, 2008; and other application materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at the intersection of
Calkins Road and the Private Road to Inlet Valley Homeowners Association as
shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Parcel to be Conveyed
by Inlet Valley Homeowners Association, Inc located on Calkins Road, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " subject to the following conditions:
a. submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an
original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined
prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and
submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department, and
b. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the +/- 0.91 acre parcel
with Tax Parcel No. 33.- 2 -7.2, and evidence of such consolidation to be
submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM
SEAR, Montessori School - Field of Dreams Modification, 120 King Road East.
GTIT -i
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit to
modify the Field of Dreams project located at the Elizabeth Anne Clune
Montessori School of Ithaca, 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential
PB 7/7/2009
Page 9 of 34
Zone and Medium Density Residential Zone. The modifications include placing a
new tea house next to the pond and relocating an existing shed adjacent to the
new gravel drive. Evan Monkemeyer and Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori -
School of Ithaca, Owners; Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca,
Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects LLP,
Agent.
Board Member Erb declared that she knows a family that participates at the school, but
she felt that it was not necessary for her to recuse herself.
Ms. Michaels appeared before the Board and stated that the Montessori School was
before the Board in 2006 and presented its Master Plan. She went on to give a brief
overview of the school's Master Plan.
Ms. Michaels explained that Rick Lazaris volunteered to build the school a Tea House in
a traditional architectural style. The school neglected to get Planning Board approval
for the project and the application before the Board seeks approval for the existing Tea
House. She added that the school will also be appearing before the Zoning Board for
relocation of a shed.
Board Member Bosak pointed out a discrepancy in tax parcel numbers between the
County record and the survey.
Board Member Talty asked what the Tea House was made out of. Board Member Riha
responded that it is made out of White Pine. Board Member Talty expressed concern
with regard to the type of lumber that was used given it is located outside.. Ms. Michaels
said that the Tea House has been sealed and offered to find out if pressure treated
wood had been used where the Tea House connects to the earth. Board Member Talty
stated that he wanted to make sure that the building would not become dilapidated
because of seasonal effects on the wood. Ms. Michaels thought that the building had
been sealed properly and went on to say that the school is diligent about the quality of
the structures and physical space provided to children. She knew that the school would
keep the building well- maintained.
Mr. Bates brought up that the Code Enforcement Office had not received a building
permit applicant for the Tea House. He said that the building would need to comply with
building code, meaning a proper foundation and weather protection. Mr. Bates thought
that the building would also need to obtain a sprinkler variance from the Zoning Board
because all the school's structures are required to have a sprinkler. Ms. Michaels
asked if a pavilion would need a sprinkler system as well. Mr. Bates responded that it
would need to have a sprinkler system or a variance.
Board Member Conneman was confident that the building was built with appropriate
materials.
PB 7/7/2009
Page 10 of 34
Board Member Erb brought the Board's attention to the engineering memo that
discussed anchoring bolts. Ms. Michaels stated that the anchoring bolts had been
installed on both the Tea House and the shed.
Board Member Talty noted that the foundation for the Tea House is only 18 inches
deep; he thought that foundations were supposed to be at least 36 inches. Mr. Bates
explained that if an engineer designs a building and states that in his/her opinion that it
is frost protected due to proper gravel, etc., it is an acceptable alternative.
Chairperson Howe opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and invited the public to
address the Board —none. Chairperson Howe solicited questions from the Board.
Board Member Erb asked that 100 +/- square feet on the EAF be changed to 180
square feet. Board agreed.
Board Member Erb moved and Board Member Conneman seconded the proposed
SEOR resolution.
Mr. Kanter noted that whereas clause 2 needed to be changed to read, "...Planning
Board is acting in an uncoordinated environmental review..." The same change would
need to be made to the site plan resolution.
Mr. Kanter stated that the Tax Parcel number needed to be corrected to read 3.21.
Board agreed to changes. Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -060: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special
Permit (Modifications), Montessor/ School – Field of Dreams, 120 & 122 King
Road East. Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43 -1 -3.6 and 43 -1 -3.21
MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special. Permit to modify the Field of Dreams project located at the Elizabeth
Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.21 (portion of), Low
Density Residential Zone and Medium Density Residential Zone. The
modifications include placing a new tea house next to the pond and relocating an
existing shed adjacent to the new gravel drive. Evan Monkemeyer and Elizabeth
Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Owners; Elizabeth Anne Clune
Montessori School of Ithaca, Applicant, Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf,
landscape Architects LLP, Agent, and
PB 7/7/2009
Page 11 of 34
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
in an uncoordinated review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit, and
3. The Planning Board, on July 7, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant,
and Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, a drawing titled "Layout Plan" with
the changes marked in red, other drawings and photos in the packet date
stamped June 5, 2009, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit,
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 11, and, therefore, a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb.
NAYS:.None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Howe invited the public to address the Board. There being none, he
closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
Ms. Michaels pointed out that in Mr. Lazaric's notes, he said that the decking is
pressure treated wood.
Board Member Riha moved and Board Member Talty seconded the proposed
resolution.
Ms. Michaels clarified that the square footage of the Tea House is 100 square feet. Mr.
Bates asked for the roof line dimensions of the structure. Ms. Michaels said the plans
show the roof dimensions as 8 feet. Board Member Talty stated that the Code
Enforcement Office needed the corner -to- corner dimension of the roof. Board Member
Erb suggested that the resolution include a condition requiring submission of
measurements and for the applicant to obtain a building permit if necessary.
PB 70/2009
Page 12 of 34
Attorney Brock noted the same language change as made to the SEQR resolution
(whereas clause 2).
Additional changes:
Now therefore be it resolved paragraph — last word of paragraph should be "met'.
Second resolved clause — strike period and add comma; add, "subject to the following
conditions: a. receipt of any necessary approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
and b. receipt of any necessary building permits."
Third whereas paragraph — delete "and ".
Page 2, #2 — change "fields" to "field ".
Board agreed to changes. Chairperson Howe called for a vote -- carried unanimously.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-061: Prellminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit
(Modifications). Montessorl School — Field of Dreams. Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 73.5.
43 -1 -3.6 and 43 -1 -3.21
MOTION made by Susan Riha, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit to modify the Field of Dreams project located at the Elizabeth
Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.21 (portion of), Low
Density Residential Zone and Medium Density Residential Zone. The
modifications include placing a new tea house next to the pond and relocating an
existing shed adjacent to the new gravel drive. Evan Monkemeyer and Elizabeth
Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Owners; Elizabeth Anne Clune
Montessori School of Ithaca, Applicant, Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf,
landscape Architects LLP, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in
an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project has, on July 7,
2009, 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 11 prepared by Town Planning staff,
and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 7, 2009, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate, a drawing titled "Layout Plan" with the changes marked in
PB 7/7/2009
Page 13 of 34
red, other drawings and photos in the packet date stamped June 5, 2009, and
other application materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed
Montessori School Field of Dreams modifications 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the Montessori School Field of
Dreams project, as shown on a drawing titled "Layout Plan" with the changes
marked in red, other drawings and photos in the packet date stamped June 5,
2009, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions:
a. receipt of any necessary approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
b. receipt of any necessary building permits.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Tally, Erb.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM
SEOR, Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 651 Five Mile Drive.
And
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
Continuation of consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility
located at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2, Low
Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/ -125'
PB 7/7/2009
Page 14 of 34
self supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11' -6" x 30'
equipment shelter installed on a 20'x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide
gravel access drive. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; Upstate Cellular- Network d/b /a
Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent.
Jared Lusk appeared before the Board and gave a brief presentation to the Board. Mr.
Lusk highlighted Verizon responses (from its July 1, 2009 report to the Town) to the two
consultant reports. The report addressed questions regarding: coverage need; the sites
investigated for siting of the tower; the preference for one tower site vs. two tower sites;
visual impacts of Carroll site and Maguire site; site mitigations; impact on property
values; SEQR.
Mr. Lusk reference the letter the Town received from Mr. Amato and took exception to
the tone of the letter and its implication that Verizon had somehow been dishonest or
forthright in discussions. He said that Mr. Handley addressed the issues raised by Mr.
Amato on several occasions.
Chairperson Howe stated that Mr. Johnson's June 3e report it discusses distributed
antenna systems and he wondered if Verizon had addressed it in its July 1 sc report. Mr.
Lust replied that they did not respond to it because they probably discussed it at the
June 16th meeting. Verizon does not utilize the system at this time because of its
questionable reliability at this time.
Chairperson Howe invited the public to address the Board.
Patti Amato came before the Board and directed the Board's attention to the letter they
received from Mr. Amato. She said that Verizon's intention at the first meeting was not
clear to them and recalled that Verizon was trying to address a coverage issue in the
Coy Glen area. Ms. Amato felt that the intent really wasn't directed towards the
neighborhood, but towards the Route 13 corridor'and the big box stores. She went on
to say that the tower was being proposed to address the needs of Verizon customers
along Route 13 and the big box zones and as such it should be placed in a commercial
area. She mentioned that the Town's guidelines have always supported coloration and
location of a tower in a residential neighborhood is last on the list.
Ms. Amato appreciated the fact that Verizon was trying to disguise their towers, but felt
that the tower would be obvious to those living in the neighborhood. She questioned
whether she would buy property located next to a cell phone tower, but was not able to
address property value issues because she had not researched the topic.
Ms. Amato hoped that the Town would follow its guidelines and put a commercial
enterprise in a commercial zone.
Claudia Brenner came before the Board and noted that she is a licensed architect so
she has some sense about what goes on during the planning of a project. She felt that
there had not been a real sincere effort on part of Verizon's representative to explore
PB 70/2009
Page 15 of 34
the Maguire site. She understood why they hadn't because of the signed agreement
with Mr. Carroll; to her, it felt like an insincere effort to explore the Maguire site. Ms.
Brenner stated that Route 13A neighborhood is in danger and thought that this project
would be another nail in the coffin for the lovely homes and properties on Route 13A.
Ms. Brenner stated that the Planning Board has a responsibility to not begin discussing
mitigating the tower, but to discuss whether or not its an option to put the tower in an
appropriate location. She agreed with her neighbors that the efforts toward mitigation
are almost onerous when she thinks about the several feet of tower that will be above
the tree line. Ms. Brenner wondered how the Planning Board would feel coming home
to a tower in their neighborhood everyday.
Ms. Brenner strongly urged the Board to not act on the proposal, to reject the proposal,
and ask the applicant to put the cell phone tower where it belongs.
With no other members of the public wishing to speak, Chairperson Howe directed the
Board's attention to SEQR. He asked the Board if there was any information they were
lacking to be able to make a decision regarding SEQR.
Board Member Conneman asked Mr. Lusk for the status of the Maguire site. He asked
if Verizon had visited the site and what they found. He did not think that neighbors
would object to the tower being sited in that location. Mr. Lusk responded that Verizon
has looked at the site, conducted balloon tests, contacted the owner and understands
where the tower would be located if they were to lease the site. He explained that
Verizon wanted to evaluate the Maguire site from an aesthetic point of view before they
leased the site. He said that Verizon has never denied that the Maguire site was an
acceptable site from an RF point of view.
Board Member Conneman argued that there is a lot of junk on the Maguire site; he
would not call it the end of the world but thought that one could see the end of the world
from there. He didn't care what happened on the Maguire site. Board Member
Conneman asked again what contact Verizon had with Maguire. He said that Verizon
did not provide the Board with a letter saying that Maguire was not interested. Mr. Lusk
responded that Verizon has said that they've had discussions with them. Maguire did
not express an interest or a disinterest; they simply said they would enter negotiations.
Board Member Conneman asked why Verizon did not get Maguire to verify that in a
letter. Mr. Lusk explained that Verizon entered negotiations for a lease with Bill Cooke
when he owned the property, they got to the point where they were expecting Mr.
Cooke's comments when he called Verizon and backed out without reason.
Board Member Conneman asked about negotiations with Maguire. Mr. Lusk responded
that Ken Cowley has talked with Maguire; he reiterated that Verizon never indicated that
they wouldn't have discussions with Maguire. He said that Verizon is not saying that the
site is unavailable.
PB 7/7/2009
Page 16 of 34
Chairperson Howe stated that Mr. Lusk has stated what the Board needs to know for
the evening. He thought the Board needed to discuss whether the issue comes down to
aesthetics or more than aesthetic&-
Chairperson Howe asked Board Member Conneman if there was another area he
wanted to discuss.
Mr. Lusk thought that a majority of the Planning Board members preferred the Carroll
site over the Maguire site after seeing the aerial photos. Chairperson Howe did not
think a lot of weight should be put on that and that the Board should move forward with
its new discussion.
Chairperson Howe redirected the conversation to Board Member Conneman's next
question.
Board Member Conneman recalled Verizon saying that one of the ways of mitigating the
Carroll site was to eliminate the microwave antennas. He asked if the microwave
antennas would be eliminated forever, or if Verizon was going to come back with a
request for them in the future. Mr. Handley responded that Board Member Conneman
asked the same question at the last meeting and he had responded that if Verizon has
to come back, then they would have to come back before the Planning Board for
approval.
Board Member Conneman wanted Verizon to write the Town a letter saying that they
would not make a future request for the microwave antennas.
Attorney Brock felt that the Town needed to know if Verizon had plans to come back
before the Board for the microwave antennas. She said that if they did, then it would be
segmentation under SEQR. The Board needs to consider all of the potential impacts
from the project together at once.
Mr. Lusk stated that Verizon did not have any plans at this point or any time in the
future, at this point in time, for microwave antennas on the tower. Board Member
Conneman stated that that response was not good enough for him; he interpreted that
to mean that Verizon would be coming back in the future. Attorney Brock responded
that Mr. Lusk answered the question.
Board Member Bosak stated that the Board does not make a decision without a
question being put before the Board and it being voted on. He went on to say that he
was not ready to make a real decision that evening. He has not come to a coherent
position in his mind regarding the Verizon application. He thought that he might be in a
position at the next meeting to make a decision if the Board receives the information it
needs at this meeting.
Board Member Bosak asked Mr. Johnson if he accepts the findings regarding the
Department of Public Works site. Mr. Johnson responded that he reviewed the plots
PB 7 /72009
Page 17 of 34
presented by Mr. Handley. He explained that the problem was asking Mr. Handley to
do that wasn't just a hypothetical what -if, the Board did not have the evidence in front of
them that was needed to discount the site. The Board now has that evidence with the
plots provided by Mr. Handley. Mr. Johnson stated that he concurs with Verizon's
finding as they have stated it.
Board Member Bosak asked if Mr. Johnson agreed that the DPW site was not
technically feasible. Mr. Johnson responded that is correct; the DPW site would not
provide the needed in- building coverage Verizon needs along Route 13.
Board Member Bosak asked if a multiple site solution has a downside in terms of visual
impact. Mr. Johnson responded that a multiple site solution would have a similar type of
impact. He said that even if the sites were shorter, they would not be 40 feet in height.
The towers would be 75 -90 feet high and there would be multiple sites in the area that
would have to be zoned. Board Member Bosak followed up by asking if that would
apply to the technology Mr. Johnson was referring to. Mr. Johnson explained that the
distributed antenna system is a different type of technology because it mounts on top of
telephone poles or buildings if they are sufficiently tall. His report tried to enunciate
what some of the liabilities of the site were. He explained that it was not just a
hypothetical solution to throw a wrench into the Board's decision - making, but he tried to
present the Board with all the options. He said that some of the options may not be the
most technologically or legally preferable.
Board Member Bosak asked if there would be visual impact issues with the distributed
antenna system (leaving aside the technical issues). Mr. Johnson responded that there
are impacts, but the proposal is in a commercial area. His personal opinion was that it
was not a huge impact, but boxes and antennas would need to be mounted on the
poles.
Board Member Bosak commented that most of the neighbors are not within sight of the
proposed tower. Chairperson Howe thought that was true of the neighbors that have
addressed the Board. He added that of the neighbors that have spoken before the
Board, many of them would not be visually impacted by the tower from their residences.
Board Member Bosak stated that if the public was willing to let that contention stand,
then it boils down to the fact that the visual impact the Board is discussing is the visual
impact on people traveling through on the area. Board Member Erb did not agree; she
said that there was a potential visual impact from the cemetery and against the hillside
when viewing the tower from Buttermilk Falls. Board Member Bosak did not think that
the residents of the cemetery would mind the visual impact of the tower. Board Member
Conneman thought that that was a cheap shot and said that there are people that visit
the cemetery all the time very seriously. Board Member Bosak responded that he
circulated pictures of what it looks like from the cemetery and believes the visual impact
to be very considerable, but part of what the Board is trying to juggle in the background
is the interest of the people that are going to be offended visually versus the interest of
the people who want the coverage.
PB 7/7/2009
Page 18 of 34
Board Member Bosak stated that he needed to ponder the decision, but he felt that he
had all the information that he needed.
Board Member Talty stated that he has kept all the minutes and materials regarding the
Verizon application. He said that what was originally presented to the Board is quite
different from what is being presented to the Board now. He understands that there has
been follow -up from the Board, staff, and public, but what is disingenuous as far as
Verizon, he hoped it that it would be corrected in future proceedings in other townships.
Board Member Talty stated that there is a lot of merit in Ms. Amato's statement with
regards to the original application and hoped Verizon would be forthcoming next time
with other municipalities.
Mr. Lusk responded that their original application stated Verizon's need and he thought
maybe it wasn't clear in the beginning. He said that Verizon tried to be clear from the
beginning and respond to questions as they came along.
Board Member Erb asked if there was an appropriate time for Board Members to make
a simple statement to address some of the many other items that were questions that
they got from the public. She gave the example that many members of the public said
that the radio frequency waves are dangerous; the Board has material stating that it is
essentially 1,000 -times below the legal limit. Board Member Erb went on to list the
variety of concerns given during public comment.
Board Member Riha thought that the Board should focus on SEQR and whether the
tower would have an environmental impact. Then the Board could address site plan
issues. Board Member Bosak argued that SEQR could not be separated from site plan
because there are powerful implications for the position the Board is put in after the
SEAR depending upon the Board's decision.
Board Member Erb stated that she wanted to make sure that she was correct on some
of the issues. She said that she listened, took notes, and went back through everything
she received from the public and all that she is left with is the question of visual impact.
Chairperson Howe suggested that the Board focus as much as possible on SEQR
recognizing that it cannot be completely decoupled from the ultimate decision. Board
Member Bosak reminded the Board that the radio frequency issue is a non - issue; the
Board is forbidden by Federal Law from considering the issue. Attorney Brock
interjected that the Verizon would need to meet the FCC levels.
Board Member Riha stated that when she reads through the environmental form, the
only major area of debate has to do with aesthetic impact. Board Member Erb agreed.
Chairperson Howe opened the floor up to public comments.
Donn Carroll came before the Board and stated that he owns the property at 651 Five
Mile Drive. He stated, with the understanding that he has a vested interest in the
PB 7172009
Page 19 of 34
application, that he bought a piece of property in what looked like a very overgrown
former agricultural area with real strong industrial features. He said that the railroad
runs behind the house and trains go through. He tends to overlook things that have
been there for a long time and accept them; they are not visually disturbing any more.
Mr. Carroll stated that there is an easement along the back of his property for. the power
lines. He went on to say that when the Inlet was dredged several years ago a lot of the
dredge was brought up and dumped on the property north of his. The area has
continued to be used for rough fill. Mr. Carroll said that in the context of the discussion,
he wanted to point out that those things exist as well as the power lines along the
roadway with the transformers and draped wires that he does not see. He gave the
analogy of silos in the country.
Chairperson Howe thought it comes down to the aesthetics question. Board Members
agreed with his assessment.
Ms. Brenner argued that aesthetics has a connotation that it's a minor issue. She
thought that it- really comes down to how the Board takes care of her neighborhood.
Ms. Brenner stated that if they step back from all of the technology, studies, computer
simulations, and efforts on the part of Verizon to push the tower through, it really comes
down to what is the Planning Board's job. The public has entrusted the Planning Board
with being the stewards of our neighborhood. She thought that when the Board talks
about just aesthetics then they can get into a conversation about mitigating the impact;
she felt that aesthetics is limiting when the impacts of the neighborhood are thought
about in terms of deterioration of the quality of life. Ms. Brenner returned to the fact that
the area is a low density residential neighborhood that is struggling to maintain itself in
the developing Town. She reminded the Board that the neighborhood is trusting them
to maintain the neighborhood. She realized that there was pressure coming from all
directions, but reiterated that when aesthetics are being discussed, they are really
talking about the character and nature of the low density residential neighborhood.
Chairperson Howe stated that the Board was not downplaying the role of aesthetics.
Board Member Riha said that she should have stated it differently; when she said "just
aesthetics ", she should have said that they are coming down to the component of the
environmental assessment form that deals with visual impact.
Board Member Erb stated that the base of the tower was not visible from the road. She
asked Ms. Brenner what about that diminishes the character of the neighborhood. Ms.
Brenner stated that as Ms. Erb comes down Snyder Hill Road and sees the view
coming as she approaches Judd Falls Road, imagine a 125 -foot tower by Matt
Thompson's property. She said this view would be seen as one walks, drives, bikes,
etc. Board Member Erb stated that Verizon has said Ms. Brenner will not see the tower
from her house. Ms. Brenner argued that you don't just live in your house; you live in
your environment and your neighborhood. She reiterated that it is a low density
residential neighborhood and there is a viable commercial, industrial site. She did not
see how it was possible to compare and say that the aesthetics of putting the cell phone
PB 7/7/2009
Page 20 of 34
tower in the neighborhood where it is suppose to go is a viable conversation about
aesthetics.
Board Member Bosak stated that it is about visual impact and explained that when the
Board is talking about SEAR, it is the only category that applies. Ms. Brenner stated
that the tower is a fabricated piece of landscape, which is bound to have colocation on
it.
Board Member Bosak understood that if the Board while discussing SEQR finds that
there is a positive visual impact and force Verizon to prepare a full environmental impact
statement, the Maguire option comes off the table. He explained that is the reason why
it is a more complicated question. He has been trying to emphasis that the issues are
procedurally tied together.
Attorney Brock explained that under SEQR where there is a private applicant, if the
Board requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the applicant has
to consider alternative sites to the extent they control them —by ownership or lease. If
an EIS were required, the Planning Board could not necessarily require Verizon to
consider the Maguire site as an alternative to the Carroll site. She did not think the
Board should focus on all of that in deciding whether or not to give the project a positive
declaration. She thought the Board needed to look at the proposal before them at the
Carroll site and at the potential environmental impacts and decide whether there is the
potential for significant adverse environmental impact at the site. If the Board thinks the
answer to that is yes, then it is given a positive declaration. If the Board thinks the
answer is no, then it is given a .negative declaration. She reiterated that that is what the
Board should be focusing on and not the tradeoff of what happens down the road.
Board Member Bosak stated that he would feel much better about it if he could go off
and make up his mind about the whole ball of wax and come back with an opinion about
how he thinks things should go and then decide both questions based on how he thinks
things should go personally.
Attorney Brock stated that he should look at the Carroll site and whether he thinks there
is the potential for significant adverse impact and make his decision on that.
Board Member Riha stated that it is hard to say that the tower is not going to have some
sort of visual impact so in her mind she is asking how much visual impact it is going to
have relative to other places the tower can be located.
Attorney Brock stated that under SEAR the wording is "significant" and the aesthetics is
in the purview of the Planning Board to judge whether the impact is significant or not.
Board Member Bosak asked why the Board is not also talking about impacts on growth
and character of the community. He thought that the Board tends to take the categories
under item 19 as exclusive, but they're not — they're examples. He said he was not
prepared to carry that thought further that evening. He went to say that someone could
PB 7172009
Page 21 of 34
enter a new line item under 19 and it sounded as if that is what the Board was being
asked to consider.
Chairperson Howe agreed that it was part of SEQR. Board Member Riha stated that
she has thought about the many cell towers that are located throughout the area except
for in the Town. She gave an example of the tower located behind Community Corners.
Board Member Bosak added that that is a consideration that is on his mind. Board
Member Conneman said that the Town has worked very hard and has one on a pole on
Maple Avenue, a silo on West Hill, etc. Ms. Balestra clarified that Board Member
Conneman was referring to colocated antennas. Attorney Brock added that applicants
came to the Town and proposed the colocated antennas on existing structures. She
said that there is the County tower in the Town on the Ithaca College campus.
Chairperson Howe asked Board Member Bosak if he disagreed with any of the items
listed under 19. Board Member Bosak did not disagree with any of the items.
Chairperson Howe said he did not see a big impact. Board Member Bosak argued that
Chairperson Howe was taking the list as exhaustive, but the list is of examples that
would apply. Chairperson Howe was having a hard time figuring out how the character,
given where the potential siting of the tower, would change residential patterns, etc.
Board Member Bosak, answering hypothetically, guessed the item would be if there was
an untouched, pristine rural area and the industrial looking structure changes the nature
of the area to which he thought Mr. Carroll's response was a pretty good one.
Board Member Riha stated that the area is not pristine or untouched. Board Member
Erb added that they have the property values under consideration and it is not a slippery
slope to rezone the area. Board Member Bosak thought that the problem here was.
exactly the same as with the visual impact. Speaking personally, Board Member Bosak
stated that there was no doubt in his mind that the tower was ugly. He thought that the
problem was that so many decisions have been made locally to do things that are at
least this ugly in the interest of telecommunications so it is hard to rule this one out.
Board Member Erb stated that years ago the Planning Board bought Cornell's
explanation that they needed bright blue for the roofs of the new barns. Board Member
Conneman argued that the Board also did not let Cornell build athletic fields on the
horse pastures.
Chairperson Howe asked the Board what further information they need before he sees if
someone wants to move the SEQR resolution. Board Member Bosak commented that
he would rather move it 2 weeks from now. He asked how to define an unacceptable
visual impacts under these circumstances. Board Member Riha responded that the
Board has talked about that and she thought that it was.
Board Member Erb moved the proposed SEQR resolution and Board Member Riha
seconded.
PB 7 /72009
Page 22 of 34
Chairperson Howe asked if there were any changes to the full environmental
assessment form.
Board Member Erb stated that on page 12 of the form, the tower is described as a
lattice, but she did not think it was known yet whether the tower would be a lattice tower.
Chairperson Howe suggested that "lattice" be deleted. Board Member Erb stated that
page 16 specifically discusses the tree preservation plan. Board Member. Riha added
that page 5 says that only .283 acres of tree, shrubs, or ground cover will be removed.
Board Member Erb stated that if something goes forward that evening, she hoped that
the neighbors would stay to pitch in on it.
Attorney Brock directed the board's attention to page 3, number Al, physical setting of
overall project. She noted that forest is checked, but was not sure what the Board
wanted to consider as the setting of the project area. She suggested that residential
(suburban) be checked because there is a house on the property.
Attorney Brock pointed out number 8 on page 9 and asked if the Board was comfortable
with the "yes" box being checked. Board Member Erb suggested that cemetery be
added to number 7 on page 9.
Chairperson Howe polled Board Members regarding item 8 and the majority of the
Board was comfortable with "yes" being checked. Attorney Brock suggested railroad
and fill site be added to number 7.
Attorney Brock stated that she did not understand how number 20 on page 20 was filled
out by staff. The Board decided that "yes" should be marked and the comment deleted.
Attorney Brock then moved to the Visual Addendum, item 1, 1. She thought that the .5
to 3 miles box should also be checked. The Board agreed.
Referring to Visual Addendum Attachment regarding the annual number of viewers,
Attorney Brock stated that the Board has the average daily traffic counts for the roads in
the area from which the site would be visible. She asked if there was a way to
determine an estimate of non- motorized viewers. Ms. Balestra responded that no one
has conducted a pedestrian or bicyclist count. She said that the traffic counts also do
not count the vehicles with passengers. Attorney Brock suggested language stating,
"The annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project cannot be
determined. See below for additional information."
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 200.9-062
SECIR
Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Tower
651 Five Mile Drive
Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2
PB 7/7/2009
Page 23 of 34
Planning Board, July 7, 2009
MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Susan Riha.
WHEREAS:
This action is Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility located at 651
Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2, Low Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 125' self
supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11' -6" x 30'
equipment shelter installed on a 20' x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide
gravel access drive. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a
Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the Verizon
Telecommunications Tower proposal, and
3. The Planning Board, on December 16, 2008, reviewed a Sketch Plan for the
proposal and recommended the submission of additional materials, and
4. The Planning Board, on March 3, 2009, reviewed Preliminary & Final Site Plans
for the proposal and recommended the submission of additional materials, and
5. The Planning Board, on March 24, 2009, reviewed Preliminary & Final Site Plans
for the proposal and recommended the submission of additional materials, and
6. The Planning Board, on April 7th, 2009, in the "other business" portion of the
meeting, decided to hire an independent consultant to analyze the proposed
Verizon telecommunications tower application and radiofrequency data provided
by Verizon, pursuant to Section 270 -219 -K of Town Code, and
7. The Planning Board, on April 21st, 2009, reviewed a Request For Qualifications
(RFQ), prepared by staff, for obtaining the services of an independent
telecommunications consultant, and further set up a Consultant Selection
Committee, consisting of two Planning Board members and two Planning staff
members, to review any Statements of Qualifications received from consultants,
and
8. The Planning Board, on May 5th, 2009, after receiving a verbal report and
recommendation from the Consultant Selection Committee, authorized the hiring
of William P. Johnson as the independent telecommunications consultant, and
9. The Planning Board, on June 16th, 2009, reviewed a preliminary report provided
by Mr. Johnson regarding the Verizon tower proposal and recommended further
PB 7 /72009
Page 24 of 34
study based on the submission of new information by Verizon at the meeting,.
and
10. The Planning Board, on July 7th, 2009, has reviewed a final report provided by
Mr. Johnson including an analysis of the new information provided by Verizon at
the June 16th Planning Board meeting, and
11. The Planning Board, on July 7th, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted and prepared by the
applicant; materials previously provided for the December 16, 2008 Planning
Board meeting, including a memo from the applicant dated November 14, 2008
with project details in tabs A through P; additional information provided at the
December 16th meeting, including another memo from the applicant and
additional project details in tabs Q through S; a memo and packet dated
February 3, 2009, submitted by the applicant and containing the additional
information requested by the Planning Board in tabs T through X; a memo and
packet dated February 25, 2009, distributed to the Planning Board by the
applicant at the March 3, 2009 Planning Board meeting and containing additional
information requested by staff in Tab Y; a memo and packet dated March 24,
2009, distributed to the Planning Board by the applicant at the March 24, 2009
Planning Board meeting and containing additional information requested by the
Board in Tabs Z through FF; a packet dated April 14, 2009, containing additional
information in Tabs GG -II; a memo and packet dated April 28, 2009, distributed
at the May 5, 2009 Planning Board meeting and containing. information Tab JJ; a
document titled "Verizon Wireless' Response to Professor Johnson's Report,"
dated June 9, 2009, distributed at the June 16th, 2009 Planning Board meeting,
Professor Johnson's report dated June 30, 2009 and responses from Verizon
dated July 1, 2009 including a cover letter and tabs KK, LL, MM, and NN, and
other application materials, and
12. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Verizon
Telecommunications Tower project;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the
information in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I and for the reasons set
forth in the EAF Part II and Visual Addendum and, therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Bosak, Riha, Erb.
PB 7/7/2009
Page 25 of 34
NAYS: Talty, Baer, Conneman.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried.
The Board then directed its attention to the Preliminary Site Plan and Special Permit
resolution and discussion.
There was some discussion about the color and style of the pole. The Board discussed
towers that they had seen and their preference for either a mono -pole or the lattice -style
tower and colors. They briefly discussed attempts that have been made to make the
tower(s) look like trees. No one liked those. The Board agreed on the monopole style
and galvanized steel.
The Board went through each item in the "now therefore be it resolved section" and
reasons were given for each. Consistent language was added to match that that was
added to the SEQR resolution regarding handouts and information provided to the
Board by Verizon. Special attention was given to the requirements to shield the lower
portion of the tower as much as possible and to preserve as many trees as possible on
the site.
The Town's Consultant was available for and assisted with some terminology,
especially the key point of location. The word "available" and its definition in the Town
Code and Law was paramount. At this time, this was the best "available" site. Board
Member Bosak wanted to add that the County made a site he thought would be much
better suited "unavailable." It does not belong in the resolution, but is stated here.
Board Member Erb asked Mr. Lusk if anything on the tower was likely to be reflective.
He said they were not, and the Board went on to discuss possibly painting the panels on
the tower. Mr. Lusk and Mr. Handley responded that paint would be a maintenance
problem and Professor Johnson agreed. After further discussion, the Board agreed not
be specific about the color here at Preliminary and decide at the Final Site Plan
approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -063 Preliminary Site Plan
Approval and Special Permit Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Tower, 651
Five Mile Drive. Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2 Planning Board, July 7, 2009
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded Hollis Erb.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary,Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility located at 651
Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2, Low Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 125' self
PB 7 /72009
Page 26 of 34
supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11' -6" x 30'
equipment shelter installed on a 20' x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide
gravel access drive. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a
Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent, and
2. The Planning Board, on December 16, 2008, reviewed a Sketch Plan for the
proposal and recommended the submission of additional materials, and
3. The Planning Board, on March 3, 2009, reviewed Preliminary & Final Site Plans
for the proposal and recommended the submission of additional materials, and
4. The Planning Board, on March 24, 2009, reviewed Preliminary & Final Site Plans
for the proposal and recommended the submission of additional materials, and
5. The Planning Board, on April 7th, 2009, in the "other business" portion of the
meeting, decided to hire an independent consultant to analyze the proposed
Verizon telecommunications tower application and radiofrequency data provided
by Verizon, pursuant to Section 270 -219 -K of Town Code, and
6. The Planning Board, on April 21st, 2009, reviewed a Request For Qualifications
(RFQ), prepared by staff, for obtaining the services of an independent
telecommunications consultant, and further set up a Consultant Selection
Committee, consisting of two Planning Board members and two Planning staff
members, to review any Statements of Qualifications received from consultants,
and
7. The Planning Board, on May 5th, 2009, after receiving a verbal report and
recommendation from the Consultant Selection Committee, authorized the hiring
of William P. Johnson as the independent telecommunications consultant, and
8. The Planning Board, on June 16th, 2009, reviewed a preliminary report provided
by Mr. Johnson regarding the Verizon tower proposal and recommended further
study based on the submission of new information by Verizon at the meeting,
and
9. The Planning Board, on July 7th, 2009, reviewed a final report provided by Mr.
Johnson including an analysis of the new information provided by Verizon at the
June 16th Planning Board meeting, and
10. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in
an uncoordinated environmental review, has, on July 7, 2009, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted
as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted and
prepared by the applicant, and Part II and Visual Addendum prepared by staff,
and
PB 7/7/2009
Page 27 of 34
11. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 3, March 24,' April
21,2009, and July 7, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate: materials
previously provided for the December 16, 2008 Planning Board meeting,
including a memo from the applicant dated November 14, 2008 with project
details in tabs A through P; additional information provided at the December 16th
meeting, including another memo from the applicant and additional project details
in tabs Q through S; a memo and packet dated February 3, 2009, submitted by
the applicant and containing the additional information requested by the Planning
Board in tabs T through X; a memo and packet dated February 25, 2009,
distributed to the Planning Board by the applicant at the March 3, 2009 Planning
Board meeting and containing additional information requested by staff in Tab Y;
a memo and packet dated March 24, 2009, distributed to the Planning Board by
the applicant at the March 24, 2009 Planning Board meeting and containing
additional information. requested by the Board in Tabs Z through FF; a packet
dated April 14, 2009, containing additional- information in Tabs GG -II; a memo
and packet dated April 28, 2009, distributed at the May 5, 2009 Planning Board
meeting and containing information Tab JJ; a document titled "Verizon Wireless'
Response to Professor Johnson's Report," dated June 9, 2009, distributed at the
June 16th, 2009 Planning Board meeting, Professor Johnson's report dated June
30, 2009 and responses from Verizon dated July 1, 2009 including a cover letter
and tabs KK, LL, MM, and NN, and other application materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the construction of the
proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications tower and related facilities, finding that:
A. The health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with
the general purpose of this chapter (including the specific purposes related to the
zone in which the premises are located) are being promoted, specifically the
proposed facility meets FCC exposure guidelines and does not present traffic
issues;
B. The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use will fill a
neighborhood or community need, specifically the provision of additional wireless
telecommunications capacity and coverage;
C. The proposed use and the location and design of any structure will be consistent
with the character of the district in which it is located, specifically it will be located
adjacent to a railroad and fill site, and vegetative screening of the bottom 70 to 80
feet of the tower will be provided;
D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood
character in amounts sufficient to devalue neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, specifically as documented in Verizon
materials tab NN;
E. Operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to
PB 702009
Page 28 of 34
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination, or other
potential nuisance, than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone,
specifically noise will be limited to HVAC and emergency generator power, light
restricted to security light over building door, no fumes, no vibrations;
F. Community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to protective
services, roadways, garbage collection, schools, and water and sewer facilities are
currently of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, specifically the
facility will require only electric and telephone service, not water or sewer facilities
nor garbage collection or school capacity, and a roadway already serves the
property;
G. The proposed use, building design, and site layout comply with all the provisions of
this chapter and, to the extent considered by the reviewing Board, with other
regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state
and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town's Comprehensive Plan,
specifically this approval is conditioned upon the granting of any necessary
variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
H. The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed
and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, specifically
there is, a road that abuts the property and an easement to the facility which is
adequate for emergency vehicle access; specifically there is a road that abuts the
property and an easement to the facility which is adequate for emergency vehicles;
I. The general effect of the proposed use upon' the community as a whole, including
such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage
systems is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community, specifically only one.to two vehicle trips per month are estimated to the
facility, and the facility will not use the water or sewer systems;
J. The lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed
use and access, parking and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize
their visual impact, specifically for the reasons stated above;
K. Natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or
ordinance, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely
affects other properties, specifically there are no drainage ways on the site and the
applicant will submit and comply with the terms of a Simple Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan;
L. To the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the reviewing Board, the proposed
use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth
in this chapter.
And, that the telecommunications facility:
PB 7/7/2009
Page 29 of 34
(1) Is necessary to meet current or reasonably expected demands for services, as
specifically as documented by Verizon's application materials and confirmed by the
Town's RF Engineering Consultant;
(2) Conforms with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules or regulations
promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC), Federal
Aviation Administration (the FAA), or any other federal agencies having jurisdiction;
(3) Is considered a public utility in the State of New York;
(4) Is sited, and will be designed and constructed in a manner which minimizes i) visual
impact to the extent practical and ii) adverse impacts upon migratory and other birds
and other wildlife, specifically this is sited to be partially screened by tall trees, this
application does not include microwave dishes, and it has been documented that the
height of 125 feet is at or near the minimum height required;
(5) Complies with all other requirements of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning, unless
expressly superseded therein, specifically this approval is conditioned upon the
granting of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
(6) Is the most appropriate site among those available within the technically feasible
area for the location of a telecommunications facility, the site provides some
screening of the lower portion of the tower, and will be visible from fewer locations
within the surrounding area;
(7) Such a tower is designed to accommodate future shared use by at least two other
telecommunications service providers as documented by Verizon's application
materials.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the construction of the proposed Verizon Wireless
telecommunications tower and related facilities located at 651 Five Mile Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2- 25.2., as shown on the above - referenced
plans and materials, subject to the following conditions:
a. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, submission of a landscaping plan
showing evergreen or other vegetative screening of the proposed fence
and equipment shelter, for the review and approval of the Director of
Planning, and
b. Prior to Final Site Plan Approval, submission of a tree preservation plan
that shows the preservation of all trees as generally shown on the tree
preservation plan drawn by staff and distributed to the Board, and
preservation of the trees located along the northern and southern property
PB 7/7/2009
Page 30 of 34
boundaries, except for those shown on the plan to be removed for the
construction of the driveway, concrete pad, and tower, and except for
diseased, damaged or fallen trees that need to be removed: Any
diseased, damaged, or fallen trees within the preservation areas shall be
replaced with similar, non - invasive species, at least 6" in diameter in size.
C. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, granting of any necessary variances by
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
d. The tower shall be constructed of galvanized steel as a monopole, with no
microwave dishes.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Bosak, Riha, Talty, Erb.
NAYS: Baer, Conneman.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM
Consideration of a modification to the December 7, 2004 Subdivision Approval for
the 33 -Lot Westview Subdivision located on Schickel Road and Larisa Lane in the
Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves changing the tree
preservation (vegetative buffer) requirements for lots 6 — 9, 20 — 22, 26, 28 and 29.
The same size area will be protected on each lot, but in a slightly different
arrangement. Westview Partners, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Boris Simkin, Agent
Boris Simkin, Agent was present.
Chris Balestra gave a brief overview of the project. The original Westview subdivision
included a tree preservation plan and a drainage plan. Some of the lots that were
required to have tree preservation also required a drainage swale in the same location.
This was discovered recently and the current proposal is to modify the tree preservation
plan to allow the drainage swales in the areas on the western side lots of certain lots
instead of the tree preservation.
There were no SEAR questions and the Board moved the resolution and made minor
typographical changes to the resolution.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-064 SEAR
Modification of Subdivision Approval Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision
Schickel Rd. Danby Rd Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3.2 Planning Board, July 7. 2009
MOTION made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Kevin Talty.
PB 7/7/2009
Page 31 of 34
WHEREAS:
1. This action involves consideration of modification of Subdivision Approval for the
Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and.
NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Low
Density Residential Zone. The 2004 subdivision approval involved extending
Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots,
with one lot to be consolidated with an adjacent parcel, and one 1'/2 +/- acre lot to
be used as park site. The proposed modification includes amending the tree
preservation requirements on lots 6 -9, 20 -22, and 26 -29, such that the same size
area will be protected on each lot, but in a slightly different arrangement.
Westview Partners, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Boris Simkin, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to
modification of Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on July 7, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, Part II
prepared by Town Planning staff, a plan entitled " Westview Proposed Vegetative
Buffer Modifications Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, & 29, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Philip Erik Whitney, P.E., dated May,
2009, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Modification of
Subdivision Approval;
NOW 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 of the New York State Quality Review Act
for the above referenced action 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 resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Talty, Erb.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PB 7/7/2009
Page 32 of 34
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:12p.m.
Tessa Flores, a neighbor, spoke stating that she had no problem with the plan. She did
comment that there was a house on building lot #10 and hoped that the mature trees
were going to be preserved.
There, was no one else wishing to address the Board and the Public Hearing was closed
at 10:17 p.m.
Discussion followed. Board Member Bosak asked about the drainage issues. Board
Member Riha agreed with him, stating that she was confused about why the issues
were being separated.
Ms. Balestra explained that condition b was a direct quote from the Engineering memo
added because they felt it was very important to add it to the resolution regarding the
tree preservation even though the drainage issues will be dealt with later on. She went
on to point out that condition b was not necessarily for the installation of the Phase III
stormwater infrastructure; it is "or installation of other engineering measures to address
the existing stormwater management problems on the site." She stated that the
applicant is working with the Engineering Department to do that. The second part of the
condition details that if there are any significant changes to the plan, then submission of
a modified drainage plan is required to be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Board.
Board Member Riha responded that that leads to the point that they may not even want
any of the swales, which would mean not taking down any trees. Board Member Bosak
agreed and thought that was something the Board should be talking about. He asked
about the holding ponds on two of the lots and Ms. Balestra replied that those were
meant to be temporary holding ponds. Ms. Taylor added that the ponds were an
emergency measure that the DEC required.
Mr. Simkin spoke up and stated that in his mind there were two issues up for discussion
today; one is the tree preservation area which the Board is discussing today and the
second is drainage which the Board was not discussing today. He stated that there
were several reasons why he was not prepared to discuss drainage that night. He went
on to say that he was proposing to eliminate condition b because you could not have b
without discussing b and understanding what is happening. He proposed discussing
tree preservation tonight, and vote yes or no and if the issue can not be resolved with
Engineering or there were changes to the plan that needed the Board's attention, he
would come to the next meeting with information and solutions.
Chairperson Howe asked if there was a sentiment that the Board wants to bring the
issues back together and address them all together. Board Member Riha stated that
that was her feeling because the Board may decide on a drainage plan that doesn't
require changing so much of the tree preservation plan. Mr. Simkin insisted one had
nothing to do with the other and Board Member Riha asked him if one had nothing to do
PB 7 [72009
Page 33 of 34
with the other, why did he want to change the tree preservation plan if it had nothing to
do with swales, or drainage. Mr. Simkin replied that it was a mistake by everyone; the
mistake was that the original- drainage plan, the original stormwater drainage plan
approved by the Engineering Department, the Board and the designer, required them to
build 10 or 12 or 14 dry swales that is one issue; but the tree preservation plan required
a 25 foot buffer along the whole lot but the same area also required 150 foot long dry
swales which can not be built and preserve trees. What he was proposing is to give the
same square footage of preserved tree area but in a different configuration. That is
what he wanted approved. He stated that the drainage problem is from up above and
has nothing to do with the original SWPPP.
Board Member Erb said that is clear, but until she is confident she knows what the new
drainage plan is, she and other Board Members are not comfortable with giving
permission to essentially strip out trees on all of the indicated lawns in the new
configuration. Board Member Bosak added that his concern is that no other lots are
developed until this is figured out. Discussion followed. Board Member Bosak thought
if they went with the assumption that the swales were a good idea, changes to the
resolution could be added to pass the modification to the tree preservation plan yet
protect the trees. Board Member Riha disagreed saying that they need to look at
whether an entirely new drainage plan needed to be put in place. She thought they had
no idea what they would be needing so doing any work on the site without the end plan
is not appropriate.
Mr. Simkin argued his point that he might decide not to build on certain lots or change
other things and Ms. Taylor said the Town would require a SWPPP for each lot in that
case. He continued to argue his stance. Board Member Bosak stated that the original
plan obviously did not work and Mr. Simkin disagreed. Ms. Taylor added that these
types of problems are what happen when phasing is allowed. Board Member Talty
asked if it was her opinion that if the original drainage plan had been put in all at once,
prior to phased building on the lots, the drainage would have worked.
The Board decided to adjourn the matter until more information is available and the
issues can be looked at together.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-065 Modification of
Subdivision Approval Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision Schickel Road, Danby Rd
Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3.2 Planning Board, July 7. 2009
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis Erb.
Now therefore be it resolved:
That the Planning Board adjourn the matter to allow time for the applicant to work with
Staff to develop a comprehensive approach to include drainage issues.
PB 7172009
Page 34 of 34
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Baer, Riha, Talty, Erb.
NAYS: None.
The vote on the motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Other Business
The next meeting's agenda was discussed.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:42p.m.
Respe Ily s mitted,
Paule a Terwilliger
Deputy Town Clerk
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850 _
Tuesday, July 7. 2009
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center Outdoor Recreation Area, 101 Harris B. Dates Dr.
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) Outdoor Recreation Area located at 101
Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone.
The project involves expanding an existing garden behind the hospital building with a 35' x 40'
paved area for basketball, a retaining wall, and new plantings. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca,
Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects LLP, Agent.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Inlet Valley Homeowners Association 2 -Lot Subdivision, Calkins Rd.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval regarding
the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located on Calkins Road at the entrance to the Inlet Valley
Homeowners Association (IVHOA) private road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 14.2,
Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.91 acre parcel along Calkins
Road from the +/- 56.40 acre IVHOA property. The 0.91 acre parcel contains an existing barn
which will be sold to an adjacent landowner for agricultural purposes. Inlet Valley Homeowners
Association, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Walsh, True, Walsh & Schubert, LLP, Agent.
7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Montessori School — Field of Dreams Modification, 120 King Road East.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit to modify the Field of Dreams project located at the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori
School of Ithaca, 120 and 122 King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- l -
3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density Residential Zone and Medium Density Residential
Zone. The modifications include placing a new tea house next to the pond and relocating an
existing shed adjacent to the new gravel drive. Evan Monkemeyer and Elizabeth Anne Clune
Montessori School of Ithaca, Owners; Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca,
Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects LLP, Agent.
7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 651 Five Mile Drive.
7:45 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of consideration of Preliminary and
Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless
Telecommunications Facility located at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2-
25.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 125' self
supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11'-6" x 30' equipment shelter installed
on a 20' x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide gravel access drive. Donn K. Carroll, Owner;
Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP,
Agent.
8:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Westview Tree Preservation, Schickel Rd and Larisa Ln.
8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a modification to the December 7, 2004 Subdivision.
Approval for the 33 -Lot Westview Subdivision located on Schickel Road and Larisa Lane in the
Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves changing the tree preservation (vegetative
buffer) requirements for lots 6 — 9, 20 — 22, 26, 28 and 29. The same size area will be protected on
each lot, but in a slightly different arrangement. Westview Partners, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Boris
Simkin, Agent.
12. Approval of Minutes: (none available)
13. Other Business:
14. 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 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
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, July 7, 2009, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following
times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cayuga
Medical Center (CMC) Outdoor Recreation Area located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Office Park Commercial Zone. The project involves expanding an existing
garden behind the hospital building with a 35' x 40' paved area for basketball, a retaining wall, and new
plantings. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf,
Landscape Architects LLP, Agent.
7:15 P.M.' Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval regarding the proposed 2 -lot subdivision
located on Calkins Road at ,the entrance to the Inlet Valley Homeowners Association (IVHOA) private
road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 1-4.2, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off
a +/- 0.91 acre parcel along Calkins Road from the +/- 56.40 acre IVHOA property. The 0.91 acre parcel
contains an existing barn which will be sold to an adjacent landowner. for agricultural purposes. Inlet
Valley Homeowners Association, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Walsh, True, Walsh & Schubert, LLP,
Agent.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit to modify the Field of
Dreams project located at the Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, 120 and 122 King Road
East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43- 1 -3.5, 43- 1 -3.6, and 43 -1 -3.2 (portion of), Low Density
Residential Zone and Medium Density Residential Zone. The modifications include placing a new tea
house next to the pond and relocating an existing shed adjacent to the new gravel drive. Evan
Monkemeyer and Elizabeth Anne Clune Montessori School of Ithaca, Owners; Elizabeth Anne Clune
Montessori School of Ithaca, Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects
LLP, Agent.
7:45 P.M. Continuation of consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility located at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/-
125' self supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11%6" x 30' equipment shelter
installed on a 20' x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide gravel access drive. Donn K. Carroll,
Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody,
LLP, Agent.
8:30 P.M. Consideration of a modification to the December 7, 2004 Subdivision Approval for the 33 -Lot Westview
Subdivision located on Schickel Road and Larisa Lane -in the Low Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves changing the tree preservation (vegetative buffer) requirements for lots 6 — 9, 20 — 22,
26, 28 and 29. The same size area will be protected on each lot, but in a slightly different arrangement.
Westview Partners, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Boris Simkin, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters 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, June 29, 2009
Publish: Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Mdnes&y, JUIO 2009 I';The Ithaca Journal`'
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
July 7, 2009
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SIGN -IN
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
Iff Na me 41 �/�cCyio
/(ev(,n
Address
/o/ 0.9TES p,eW
Zu4-vA /(,,. 7 C- A�V,;nr
On
0
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, July 7, 2009 commencing at
7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street.
Date of Posting: June 29, 2009
Date of Publication: July 1, 2009
S�.dtia..�o2ce.J
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1" day of July 2009.
C,-,:-�a,-L
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. Ot CL6052878
Oualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20