Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-12-15FILEDAT p Town of Ithaca PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, December 15, 2009 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rod Howe, Chair; Members: George Conneman, Jon Bosak, Susan Riha, Holls Erb and Fred Wilcox Alternate Ellen Baer Absent: Kevin Talty STAFF: Christine Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Creig Hebdon, Engineer; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Kristin Taylor, Engineer; Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk Persons to be Heard There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Approval of Minutes Board Member Bosak had a substantive change to the November 3, 2009 draft minutes. Board Member Bosak referred to page page 2, paragraph 3 where his comment "... the 1992 Parkway Plan indicated the construction of Route 89 was desirable." was not emphatic enough. He restated that what he said was that it is not just desirable, but the 1992 study demonstrated to his satisfaction that building a parkway down to 89 is physically practicable, and it said that in some ; detail and that is contrary to the representation in the DEIS. The Board agreed to the change. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-105 Adopt Planning Board Minutes Minutes of November 3, 2009 Planning Board, December 15, 2009 Motion made by Board Member Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on November 3, 2009, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meetings on November 3, 2009. Approved PB 12/15/2009 A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None The motion declared to be carried unanimously. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-106 Adopt Planning Board Minutes Minutes of December 1, 2009 Planning Board, December 1, 2009 Motion made by Board Member Riha, seconded by Board Member Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on December 1, 2009, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meetings on December 1, 2009. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Baer, Bosak, Riha, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None Abstention: Conneman The motion declared to be carried. Other Business Mr. Kanter briefed the Board on the Cornell Equestrian Center and the removal of the shrubbery. The Board asked that Cornell be asked to appear before the Board and explain their modification to the approved site plan and show the Board their new plans. Ithaca College Conservation Easement Susan Brock briefed the Board on an encroachment by a private property owner's deer fence onto a small section of the approved conservation easement. It is approximately 700 sqft. The Finger Lakes Land Trust would like the small parcel to be excluded from - the easement and Ms. Brock asked the Board's permission to approve the change because the wording in the resolution is very specific as to what area is to be included. The Board agreed to the change, stating that it was very small. Next Agenda Page 2 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 Mr. Kanter briefed the Board on the agenda items. Member Terms There was some discussion about continuity of terms with the Town Board meeting after the first Planning Board meeting. Appreciation Board Member Wilcox thanked Chairman Howe for his service as Chair. PUBLIC HEARING: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4-37, 26 -4-38, and 26 -4-39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96. (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. This public hearing is also to consider public comments regarding Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY, and on the Town of Ithaca website: www.town.ithacs.nv.us. Written comments on the DEIS will also be accepted through January 5, 2010, and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, at Town Hall at the address Indicated above. Chairman Howe referred to Ms. Balestra's memo, indicating that this evening was primarily for listening to public comments and if time permitted, discuss the comments. He added that written comments had been received from Tompkins County Planning and Health Departments. He added that-he had- received a lengthy written comment from Steven Felker. Mr. Felker requested that his comments be read into the minutes, but given its length and that it is available for review, Chairman Howe stated that it would become part of the minutes as an attachment. The full Board had received a copy also. Page 3 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 Chairman Howe also noted that there is some new information on the Oddfellow's dumpsite and Ms. Balestra gave a brief summary. She stated that there is little information on the site, but that it is believed to be behind the School of Massage somewhere and measures approximately 200 feet long by 50 feet wide in a gully with a stream leading out of it. It is believed to be filled with rubbish such as tin, glass bottles, a car door, refrigerator, etc. Ms. Balestra intends to walk the site and try and locate it. Board Member Wilcox asked if the County knew about it at some point but could not locate specific information about it? Some discussion followed. Ms. Balestra will report back to the Board after her site visit. Chairman Howe asked if Ms. Balestra had heard back from the Department of Transportation and she responded that she had not. Board Member Conneman asked if the Town Board had taken any action on conducting a Town - sponsored traffic study. Ms. Balestra was not aware of any formal action and Mr. Kanter added that the Town Board had added monies to the 2010 Town Budget for an as -of -yet undefined traffic study but that was all. Chairman Howe asked the applicants to give a brief summary of the proposal for the public in attendance. Mr. Parks gave an overview and referred to poster boards depicting the proposal and explained for the public what the DEIS is. Chairman Howe opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. He asked the public to keep their comments to approximately 5 minutes. Board Member Bosak asked the applicant if the traffic statistic details and projections of the past 10 or 15 years was available yet. He reminded the applicants that they had agreed to provide a graph of the statistics and changes in traffic to the public hearing. Mr. Parks responded that he did not have that and would have to add that to the DEIS as part of the response. Public Comments A certified verbatim transcript of the public comments at the meeting was done by an outside agency is attached to these minutes for detail. Chairman Howe added that the Board would save comments for the end but could ask clarifying questions as each person spoke. He reiterated that tonight's purpose was not to answer the public's questions, but to get feedback on the DEIS. Patricia Dutt (See Attachment 2) Ms. Dutt had a prepared outline /statement that she submitted to the Board. She was concerned about: lack of a completion bond; no way to check on Holochuck's references/reputation; sewage which is at capacity now; traffic Page 4 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 impact and perceived inaccuracies in the traffic data submitted; livability in the Town is not what it is in a city; soil erosion; viewshed; wear and tear on the Town roads and no compensation; cumulative effect of all development on traffic. She asked the Board to take a big - picture view of West Hill and address current issues with infrastructure, fire safety and gridlocked traffic before approving any additional traffic. Eva Hoffmann and Tony Ingraham Ms Hoffmann was a Planning Board member for many years and both serve on the Conservation Board, Environmental Review Board and Scenic Resources Committee They reported on comments from their committees/boards and will be submitting formal comments before the deadline. They commented off a draft of these formal comments which are touched on here and will become a part of the permanent record when submitted. Their comments revolved around the visual impacts, the clearing of trees, driveways and entrances. Visual Impacts — The photos of visual impacts did not include coming down Route 13 into the Town. This is a "welcome to Ithaca" location that is not actually in the Town but is the gateway to the Town. The photos show only an outline of the proposed development not a "block" of color which is what it will be. Possible mitigations would be to "drastically reduce the size of the project or require earth tones." Viewpoint 7 which shows the South Hill Business Campus. He was not sure why that location was chosen instead of Longview which the Committee has on its list of important scenic views and there are no views from Ithaca College. He suggested that more views need to be done. Landscape Plan — The three drainage ponds are going to require the clearing of trees which is also going to drastically change the visual impacts. There are other trees on the property that are providing a buffer to existing buildings such as PRI that if removed will change the scenic views also. Driveways — The number of private driveways, one for each driveway, will add an enormous amount of impervious surface and Ms. Hoffmann suggested shared driveways. Entrances — They were very disappointed that attempts to- secure entrance /exit through the hospital entrance were not feasible. They urged the Board to prevail upon the hospital to be a better neighbor. Warren Allman, Paleontological Research Institute (PRI) — Mr. Allman reemphasized what he has said before, that the traffic study done for this project is Page 5 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 "remarkably similar" to the traffic study done for their project, and the reason they were not required to do more to mitigate their traffic was that their peak hours do not coincide with normal rush hours. This project will coincide with normal peak times. He stated that one can wait at their driveway for 7 — 9 minutes waiting to get out. He also stated that there are many planning initiatives such as the Town reviewing their Comprehensive Plan, the Route 96 Corridor, the Town -City interaction; his plea was to try and bring everyone together to discuss the issues. Mr. Allman stated that he is in favor of nodal development and resigned to this project happening in some shape or form, but he is adamantly, vehemently opposed to the location of the north driveway because it will impact PRI for decades ahead. PRI has plans to expand and there will be a two lane highway after this which will greatly impact them. There are other projects proceeding through different planning stages and venues that need to be coordinated. Board Member Erb asked him to point out where he thought the north entrance should be and Board Member Bosak asked if the issue is that the proposed road will divide property they hope to eventually own and Mr. Allman agreed. Board Member Conneman asked what an entrance at the hospital would do to PRI and Mr. Allman stated that it would not negatively impact PRI. Lynn Baker, Bundy Rd Resident — He stated that the second driveway is directly across from their driveway and the traffic is "very challenging." He thought side walks are definitely needed and he agreed that in a general sense something like this is needed, but the sheer size of the development is a huge impact. Adrian Williams — He questioned the process because of the second part of the public hearing notice which mentioned Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Chairman Howe explained that there is enough information there to listen to comments on that also, but that will come later in the process in much more detail and after the Board has accepted the Final EIS. Mr. Williams asked if it were possible to say no at this stage, with the EIS, and say that the environmental impact is just too much? Ms. Brock answered stating that the Board was not going to say anything until the public hearing closed, then the Board has to make findings before it can make any decisions on any approvals. She went on to add that the reason the hearings are being held simultaneously has to do with SEAR and Town law which says it is possible to do that and it is very common. Mr. Williams thought it initiated an inevitability of process that seems like at some point this project will reach preliminary approval and then at some point it is going to reach final approval and that troubled him. Ms. Brock reiterated that it did not imply and affirmative or negative response from the Board. Board Member Riha asked for a little more clarification and Ms. Brock went through the process stating that a positive declaration of environmental impact was done which triggered the EIS, and this is the public comment for the draft EIS which will then used to develop the final EIS which the Board will use to makes its findings. If the Board feels that there are certain impacts that need certain mitigations or if you feel there are impacts that can't be mitigated, you Page 6 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 say that and make other findings. All of that happens before there is any consideration of any approvals. The approvals are based on the information in the findings. Mr. Williams talked about the wetlands on the property and thought that even though they are not regulated, they still need protection. The loss of woodlands and forest are also a major concern, especially if they are only being removed to give a view of the lake to the new homeowners. He mentioned the soils and topography of the area and how difficult it will be and asked the Board to be scrupulous in addressing those concerns. He agreed with the comments regarding traffic issues and did not think the Board should proceed with this project without looking at all development. He suggested that a car - free - development be looked at and eliminate the roads and driveways. Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Williams about his reference to a traff ic study that will be done by the Town. Mr. Williams reiterated what Mr. Kanter had said about the Town Board allocating funds in 2010 for a traffic study, but admitted that there are no details finalized. Board Member Bosak asked Ms. Brock what the Board's latitude is to take Mr. William's suggestion to delay until certain things happen by other agencies. She responded that under SEAR there are certain timeframes that have to be followed. If the applicant and the Board agree on extensions, then they can happen, but, the Planning Board does not have the ability to indefinitely delay. There was some discussion about when a Board does not act on a project for more than 62 days, it is deemed approved, but the clock starts after an application is considered complete and after the environmental review is done. Tee -Ann Hunter Ms. Hunter disclosed that she is a member of the Town Board, but for tonight's purposes, she is speaking as a resident of West Hill. Ms. Hunter asked to forgo her own comments and asked Chairman Howe to read into the record the letter submitted by Mr. Felker. LETTER CONCERNING CONSIDERATION OF A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT ON WEST HILL DECEMBER 15, 2009 FROM STEVEN FELKER, 212 CAMPBELL AVE. A PUBLIC SAFETY REVIEW Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns regarding development in the West Hill area of the town of Ithaca. When we moved here eight years ago,_ everyone was breathing a sigh-of relief-that some.of the traffic issues involving "The Octopus" had been addressed. Regrettably, alleviating this critical problem seems in the intervening years to have become an invitation to create it all over again. So my first word to the Planning Committee is "Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past!" Page 7 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 Roads were brought up to a level of marginally serving the daily influx and exodus from the west side of the lake, and now increasing development threatens all of the progress. Others have relayed their concerns to the Committee and Town Board about the capacities of water and sewer to handle more development - I echo, and will not repeat their point - I ask you to listen to them attentively. Others also have expressed dismay with the clustering of low income housing on West Hill, but not South Hill nor East Hill. I concur with their distress, and know long term residents victimized by West Hill crime, as well as those reforming their lives who have declared low- income housing sections of West Hill as "places I have to stay away from if I am going to turn my life around." These matters should be compelling enough to require a moratorium on development, but there are more considerations. I regret that work requires that I cannot be before the Committee in person. I extend this letter, and am available for further conversation with the Committee at a future date should you so desire. I would like to address the need for a moratiorium to development on West .Hill from a public safety perspective. Though I live on West Hill, I serve the Town of Ithaca out of my workplace as a volunteer firefighter on the northeast corner through the Cayuga Heights Fire Department. My comments are mine alone, and do not reflect the CHFD, it's officers, directors, the Village of Cayuga Heights, nor the Ithaca Fire Department with whom we have a mutual aid agreement. The roadways are the arteries of public safety. Jam them up, and help will not come in a timely way. The Hospital and Station 6 are both on the main artery of rt. 96 / Cliff St. An overload of this roadway will result in a delay of emergency service. This should be considered from three fronts: 1. Ambulances are garaged in the Bangs building on State St. They are NOT (contrary to popular perception) garaged at the hospital nor Station 6. Your road planning must maintain best access. from State St. and through the route to the hospital. Though an ambulance might respond from the hospital after a patient discharge, that proximity to the needs of West Hill is by accident, not design. Increasing congestion is an increasing delay in critical medical response, not just to West Hill, but for the entire community in their utilization of emergency medicine at Cayuga Medical Center (CMC). 2. Station 6 is not adequately staffed to extinguish a working fire. Station 6 is routinely staffed with two firefighter /EMI's on one engine. It's response is coordinated with a second engine and a ladder from the Central Station on Green St. Tactical operations for a working structure fire require (1) operator for each apparatus, (1) incident commander (ususally the officer-of-the first -in engine-, until a more senior commander arrives) and most importantly, the "two -in, two -out" rule - two equally trained and equipped firefighters for the two or more inside the IDLH environment (Incident Dangerous to Life and Health). This "two -in, twp -out" rule is a federal OSHA requirement. In short, if there is any delay in response of the engine and ladder from Central, Station 6 firefighters cannot (a) search for and rescue trapped Page 8 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 victims, nor (b) commence extinguishment operations. Unless firefighters ignore safety directives, Station 6 is of no meaningful fire service to West Hill by itself. For early assessment and operations set -up, Station 6 and it's personnel are invaluable. If manpower and equipment from Central cannot get there in a timely way, firefighter safety is compromised, operations are suspended, and the potential for firefigter injury or fatality increases. At this time (confirmed in conversation with Chief (ret.) Brian Wilbur), Station 6 is not OSHA compliant in it's configuration. In spite of the talent, commitment, and professionalism of the IFD and particularly those stationed on West Hill, the situation of public fire and medical attention on West Hill is tenuous at best. In view of proposed developments, to actively make decisions that will add to the call volume on one hand and increase the traffic load that must be negotiated by responses from Central on the other would, in my estimation, be a grossly negligent management of public safety by the Town of Ithaca. 3. Because of the critical emergency public resource the hospital represents, reserve capacity must be maintained in traffic flow. In the last year, there have been multiple full closures by design, but also by accident of one of the main arteries of West Hill. I live on Campbell Ave., which serves as the primary detour. I have watched busses break, semi's jackknife, and passenger cars get stuck on this little byway which is the only link between Station 6 / CMC and the rest of West Hill when things break on Rt. 96 (Cliff St.) and Rt. 79 (Hector). I've been in the traffic backed up more than a mile and seen a commute stretch a half an hour just to get off the Hill. Current capacity is questionable, and reserve capacity to provide public safety when "something breaks" is non - existent. As one better equipped than most to assess it, I do not feel at this time that the West Hill infrastructure is sufficient to serve the needs of public safety. So in the interest of basic public safety I urge a moratorium on West Hill development until such time as new roadway is constructed to deliver traffic to multiple points beyond "the Octopus ". Thank you for your attention to these considerations. Steven D. Felker Board Member Wilcox asked Ms. Hunter to come back up and asked her to let Mr. Felker know that he needs to get his comments to the Planning Committee, who he references in his letter and that moratoriums are not in the Planning Board's purview. Rich DePaolo Mr. DePaolo is also a Town Board member and stated that his comments would begin as a resident and then he will make comments as a Board Member. He talked about the Oddfellow dump, which has been mishandled by the Health Department and would probably be classified as a 2A which is hazardous. He feels that the site should be fully delineated and investigated. He thought that it would not be unreasonable to re -scope the EIS or require a supplemental EIS for this purpose. Page 9 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 As a Board Member he acknowledged that the cumulative impacts are a Town Board issue regarding traffic and sewer. He mentioned the past, present and future projects that are known and their probable impacts. He also questioned the traffic study findings. Board Member Riha asked Ms. Brock about all the questions regarding the lack of infrastructure, Le fire protection, roads, sewer etc, and asked if as part of the findings the Planning Board makes, can they require the Town to provide those types of services/maintenance? Ms. Brock responded that she did not think they could require the Town Board to do that, but, what they could find, hypothetically, is that there are certain impacts that cannot be acceptably mitigated unless X,Y, and Z happened with infrastructure etc and if those were not put into place or there was no plan to do so, that would inform the Board decision on the approval of the subdivision. Doug Brittain stated that he had only had a chance to study the traffic portion of the EIS and could only comment on that. He thought there were issues with the methodology and conclusion in the traffic study as well as typos such as calling Cliff St Route 13 and Figure 3.62 shows 65 vehicles coming from Trumansburg and turning into Overlook in the morning as well as more coming in than going out in the morning. He thought that the level of service was overly optimistic. The study also states that only 60% go toward the city which he thinks is not accurate. He went on to note other instances of what he thought were inaccurate or under estimated impacts. Cliff Street is becoming a place where no one wants to live. He gave an analogy of adding 1 or 2 at a time but cumulatively how large the impact becomes. He also mentioned the lack of privacy and more fumes associated with the increased traffic. He did not think this project was nodal development because there were no schools, jobs etc associated with the development and the only way to get anywhere is to drive. He commented on the hospital's feelings on having the access to the hospital and proximity to the parking lots and felt that Holochuck could work with the hospital to make it attractive. Resident. Traffic and public safety issues were her major concerns. Accidents happen frequently and access to the hospital is blocked. She stated that she would be submitting written comments prior to the deadline. The lack of infrastructure is a major issue. She pointed out a lot of the same types of issues mentioned previously; the lack of patrols to stop speeding, the number of assumptions regarding school buses, TCAT, traffic, middle- income housing etc. She also mentioned the construction schedule and that West Hill should be the same if not better than what was required for the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center. Monday through Friday business hours. Page 10 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 Kathleen Friedrich Ms. Friedrich stated that she lives across from Bundy Rd and she agreed with the previous speaker. She read from and submitted a written letter. Of note was that Ms. Friedrich was reading from a letter she wrote in 2001 and the conditions are still there, still as bad, and in many cases worse; yet the Board is considering allowing more development. She suggested a moratorium on West Hill until these issues are addressed. Ken Walker Resident Iradell Rd. He agreed with everything his partner stated and added that the cooperation of all the involved municipalities should occur and that this is not nodal development because there is no commercial, or neighborhood feel to it. Nodal development depends on keeping the residents close and there is nothing included in this development to keep the occupants close. Mr. Walker also discussed the scenic passageway down to Route 89 and he thought it really needs to get built even though it would be incredibly hard in this community. Andy Goodell. Resident Mr Goodell spoke about the time it takes to get out of his driveway and trip generation(s). He felt they were very inaccurate and do not include trips generated from services to and for the new residents. He is also on the Conservation Board for the Town and agreed with everything Mr. Ingraham stated. Mr. Ingraham spoke again and compared this project with segmentation that is not allowed as part of SEQR. But if compared, that is what is happening by different developments happening by different interests. The cumulative effect is the same. He felt that the Town's Comprehensive Plan and then the Route 96 Corridor Study need to be completed before more development is allowed. He also recalled working at the morgue and seeing a boy that had been killed on Cliff Street and he felt it would be irresponsible of the Board to add anything to the traffic issue without fixing the existing problems. Chairman Howe noted that the Board heard a.lot of things that underscore the concerns the Board is aware of, and highlighted other things that were not quite what others thought. He reminded the public that written comments were being accepted through January 5, 2009. He asked if there was anyone else wishing to address the Board; there was not, and the public hearing was closed at 9:23 p.m. and the matter returned to the Board for discussion. Chairman Howe asked the applicant if they wanted to provide general comments on what they had heard and Mr. Wells responded that they would provide comments in a comment - response format and submit them in the first draft of the final EIS. Board Member Riha asked if the Board could ask for more information on the number of accidents because that is new information and numbers were not provided. Ms. Brock responded that that was the kind of information that can be requested in the Final EIS and in fact, that is the point of a Final EIS to get additional information on issues that were raised that were perhaps not adequately addressed in the Draft EIS. Page 11 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 Mr. Wells commented on the Oddfellow's dumpsite and stated that their archeological study identified the site and the location in the DEIS and there was no medical waste there. They excavated in the area and there are logs of what they found in the DEIS. Board Members discussed the notes they made during the comments and the overwhelming comments regarded traffic and safety. Board Member Conneman stated that he felt it was clear that they needed some kind of a comprehensive plan for infrastructure. Board Member Riha reminded the Board that there were still the sewer issues that have not been addressed and also the police and fire protection, or lack thereof. Board Member Conneman agreed and stated that in his mind, that is all part of the infrastructure that needs evaluation and addressing. Board Member Bosak stated that a lot of these issues are Town Board issues. Chairman Howe agreed and stated that the Town is reviewing and revising its Comprehensive Plan but this is here now. Board Member Wilcox thought it was interesting that Mr. Brittain commented about sidewalks not being used because it is so unhealthy etc. Discussion followed. Board Member Bosak discussed the possible medical waste and the fact that hazardous waste would be further down than the surface excavation done by their archeologists. Ms. Balestra read a list of items found that she had emailed the Board. Discussion followed. Board Member Riha talked about drainage and whether the regrading was going to change the waterway paths, and about the length of construction. She thought ten years was a very, very long time to be going on and the bonding to protect against half finished projects. Discussion followed. Board Member Erb was uncomfortable that no right -of -ways had been secured for a pathway, either with CIVIC or PRI or elsewhere. She also talked about street lights, not traffic lights, but street lights. Discussion followed. Board Member Erb also noted that areas that are talked about being reclaimed is not necessarily theirs to reclaim and also maintenance of the detention ponds where there are contradicting statements within the DEIS. Discussion followed. Chairman Howe commented on the County's memo. Mr. Hebdon reiterated that the entire loop road, the stormwater, everything must go in it its entirety before the first house can be built. Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Hebdon for an update on- the sewer issues. Mr. Hebdon reported that they are working down to the siphon area. There have been no issues in the last 6 months, but, it has also been the driest fall on record. There is no timeline because they have to wait for some significant water event. They are trying to substantiate claims of overflows. Discussion followed. Page 12 of 13 The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Resp ci Ily ub itted, ILI Pa lette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk Page 13 of 13 Approved PB 12/15/2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING - HOLOCHUCK HOMES SUBDIVISION APPEARANCES: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning BOARD MEMBERS: Kristin Taylor — Creig Hebdon -- S Bruce W. Bates 6 Christine BdlestraS%0�k Susan Brock, Esq. 4A��'`�� Paulette Terwilliger 5 Rod Howe— George Conneman Jon Bosak Ellen Baer A \ \e �ke- Susan Riha Hollis Erb Fred T. Wilcox REPORTED BY: Delores Hauber, Shorthand Reporter, Notary Public * *Of note is that the names and titles of the speakers are incorrect. The accuracy and attachmeet of thisctranscription if for content of comments only. V9%TAf1?4 1j'&-P0PL-ftXQj &F MW ATTACHMENT 1 (800) 368 - 3302 PB Meeting 12 -15 -2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 MR. KANTER: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the Draft Envirommnetal Impact Statement for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 and New York State Route 89, Town of Ithaca Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from New York State Route 96. The development would be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to New York State Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property mainly zoned Conservation, remained undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with the development of the future Black Diamond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Trail. 3 This public hearing is also to consider public comments regarding Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision. Copies of the DEIS are available here, at the Tompkins County Public Library and on the Town of Ithaca website. Written comments on the DEIS will also be accepted through January 5th and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter at the Town Hall. Christine sort of summarized this in the memo to us. Primarily we're here to listen this evening. If we get some comments and if there's time for us to talk about some of the comments, that's fine. We have received written materials from both the planning, the planning committee and also from the County Health Department. And there is another letter I have here which actually asks me to read this into the minutes, but it's a very long letter so I'm not going to read it into the minutes, but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 G1 it will become part of the record. It's from a Steven Belkirk. So everyone got a copy of this and you have it in front of you. Before we proceed, we have some new information, too, there have been some e -mails about an Odd Fellows dumpsite, so that's been a new revelation. Christine has sent e -mails out to us today that's what we have, but I think there is probably more information we'll be gathering. MS. BALESTRA: Hopefully. The County Health Department doesn't know much about this dumpsite. They just know it's located behind the Finger Lakes School of Massage somewhere. It's about 200 feet long and 60 feet wide in a gully with a stream leading out of it and then it's filled with rubbish like cans, glass bottles, garbage cans, cardboard, etcetera, etcetera. They don't know how old it is. (DISCUSSION ON ODD FELLOWS DUMPSITE.) MR. KANTER: If you can give us a 24 1 brief overview presentation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 MR. WELLS: Yes, I'm prepared to do SO. Is this a good spot to have the board? I can't really make it face both sides. We have a site plan here and the aerial. MR. KANTER: You need to use the microphone just so we can pick you up. MR. WELLS: My name is Fred Wells. I'm from Tim Miller Associates. We're the environmental planner for the developer. We assisted in writing the environmental impact statement that is subject of this hearing in addition to the engineering client's team. I will just do a quick overview of the process. The planning board had a scoping session a number of months ago that basically provided a table of contents for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement which is basically what we use to write the report to study anything that is of concern on the major areas of inception for development from a site development project so that's what we've done. That DEIS was submitted to the board 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C and the board reviewed it and commented on it and asked for revisions and clarifications which we did. We resubmitted it and it was deemed complete by the board for public view and it was circulated to the approving agencies as well as other interested parties. And I believe copies are available in the library and so forth. Essentially the project is on a 106 acre site. And if you don't mind, can I turn these towards the audience? MR. KANTER: Sure. MR. WELLS: These maps have north up. On the 106 acre site to the east of Lake Cayuga, Trumansburg Road is here and Route 89 here. There is quite a significant drop in grade from the top here to down below. I'll identify some of the sites that are visible here. This is a nursing home I believe. This is the Finger Lakes School of Massage. The Paleontological Institute and Cayuga Medical Center is up here. This is the intersection of the main road and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 street lamp right on the corner there. Our project, obviously the project site is undulating and has limited access: There are actually three points of access on the Trumansburg Road that exist now. These, this is the result of past land transfers and so forth with, Cornell University owned the property at one time and the what's called the Odd Fellows complex, which is this group of buildings, historically owned the property and the other properties that connected. The proposal is for a clustered subdivision which essentially puts all the development on the west side of the site. In other words, that plan represents from about here up. From here down on the slope is going to remain green and undisturbed. So we have a'project that has a loop road for safety. We only need to provide two points of access to that. We will have an access down here near Bundy Road, intersection of Bundy and the second access that comes to approximately where the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 driveway is that goes to one of the driveways into the Finger Lakes School. And as I say it's a clustered attached housing, 106 acres -- I'm sorry. 109 acres, 106 townhouses in total. And the area to remain green that is proposed to be conveyed to the State of New York Parks and Recreation is the hillside which is approximately 65 acres, but an additional ten acres on the north end which will remain green, also. We have shown, as you can see, there is a little trail that goes from our cul -de -sac which will connect to the access road and the medical center. And we've been having discussions or had discussions with the medical center and the board's asked for consideration of access in that direction, but we would not be able to have vehicular access. Right now the plan shows access in order to get people to a bus stop, which is right here on the plan. Essentially the DEIS reviews the general areas. I don't think I need to go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 E through the impact discussion., but I'll just mention the main areas of concern that is disturbed areas, soils and topography, surface water, groundwater, wildlife and plant resources. Visual. Cultural resources such as archeology and historic. A traffic study was done. Community services which includes police, fire, emergency services. Analysis of water and sewer availability. Recreation. And effects on schools. And a discussion of community character and also as required by state law we discussed and described in the DEIS a number of alternatives which the planning board discussed and so that's in there to give comparison. We are here tonight to listen to your comments. Basically the SEQRA process requires that after the hearing is closed, the applicant and the planning board prepare a document called the final DEIS which is a response from them to all the comments made to be responded in writing and will become reviewed by this board 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 10 again and they need to go through a process of review and acceptance of that document and prepare any finding statement before any approvals are given. So there are no approvals that can be given on this project until we get through that entire review process. MR. KANTER: Thank you. So with that we will open the public hearing at 7:28. And we took a sign -in sheet away so don't worry if you walked in. We took the sign -in sheet away. We will see who else would like to speak. We would ask folks to, you know, five minutes. If you need to take a couple more minutes than five minutes, but if it goes much beyond that we might say, you know, do you have, how much longer do you need. So we can see if we can get through everyone and see where we are. So the first person on the list is Jon Bosak. MR. BOSAK: In one of our meetings, I think it might have been the November 3rd meeting, we talked about traffic statistics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11 over the last 10 or 15 years and I wanted some more information on that. And you asked us whether it would be okay to bring a graph showing the last 15 years projection for the public hearing and I was wondering if you have that? MR. WELLS: I do not have that, so what I'll need to do is provide that in the DEIS as part of the response. I'm sorry I'm not prepared for that. MR. KANTER: I just realized this was just a sign -in sheet for those who are here, so you may have put your name on here not saying that you want to speak, so I actually won't refer to the sheet. Some of you may have just been signing in. So who would like to address the board this evening? Go ahead. MS. DUTT: My name is Patricia Dutt and I live at 135 West Haven Road and first of all I want to say thank you for giving me this opportunity to make a public comment and I appreciate all the work that you do. I have a couple of general 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 12 comments. Completion bond. There was no mention made of a completion bond, thus if the project stops mid stride and Holochuck home owners file for bankruptcy because of the worsening economy, who would be responsible for the partially built development? Holochuck Homes apparently, if I'm reading the DEIS correctly, says it's a non existent Holochuck Homes homeowners association is responsible. Will this responsibility ultimately rest on the town's shoulders? Comment Number 2: Track record and reputation of Holochuck Homes. I have found no information on Holochuck Homes. What other developments have they built? Where, what other government agencies have they worked with? Comment Number 3: Sewage, there is an existing sewage problem on the West Hill. Apparently the Town is near capacity and what happens is when there is overflow, the sewage empties directly into the inlet 24 1 or the lake. Has there been any monitoring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 13 of the sewage at the point where it enters the inlet and Cayuga Lake? Holochuck Homes proposes to hold its sewage. How is it. going to hold its sewage? In open ponds? For how long? What happens during periods of torrential rainfall? Number 4: Erodible soils. How does Holochuck Homes propose to deal with erodible soils? Five, there needs to be a liveability study done and it cannot be done without input from West Hill residents. Liveability in Ithaca is not the same as liveability in Rochester. Six, what is the impact on the view shed? What studies have been done? Seven, these and other comments are based on the Holochuck Homes DEIS section 3.6 traffic and transportation. Page one, mention is made of the 2007 New York State Traffic Data Viewer which gives average annual daily traffic of 8,845 vehicles on the town part of Route 96, the city section almost 20,000 vehicles. I have a couple 1. 2 3 4 6 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 14 questions. The data is;three years, the public.comments: and :questions, this data is nearly three years'old.. Where does this data come from ? - How were these vehicles counted?.. -. Number two, page three on the traffic and transportation study again. The peak traffic volumes were..measured on one day, a Tuesday in April of.2008. That's all. Page 45, study reports that the intersection of Route 96 and North Fulton Street operates in service level of C or better. I suggest posting at the developer's expense an individual with a clipboard at the intersection of Route 96' . ,and:Fulton Street.and Route 96 and North Meadow Street to ask those in vehicles how they would rate the�level.of service, not just for one day but for several days and at times when.trains are running through the west end. Four, page six, existing public transportation. There is no mention made 24 1 of what percentage of the West Hill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 residents use public transportation and while it's mentioned that TCAT as well as the town, I recall plotting out my own route from the West Hill.to where I work which is just beyond the airport and concluded that if I'm lucky I could complete a bus commute in just under two hours. Next comment, the major employers with the exception of CMC, which has asserted is no longer expanding, are located either in the city or the other parts of the town, thus most Holochuck homeowners would certainly be contributing to the cross -town traffic. Thus unless the traffic study delineates how the 200 plus Holochuck vehicles or 600 plus Holochuck total daily trips contribute to the existing gridlock every day 4 to 6 p.m. for southward bound Route 13 traffic entering into the west end, then the current study is incomplete. I would also like to see someone with a clipboard in protective breathing apparatus asking commuters if the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 level of service is C or better. My next comment; the lack of shoulders and sidewalks into the town, part of Route 96 makes walking and biking extremely treacherous. Additional traffic on this road will only further discourage people from walking, biking and taking the bus. Next comment; Holochuck Homes provides projected an extra 21 TCAT riders to its population of 307 persons. However Holochuck Homes is a high -end development and its residents are likely to use their own vehicles rather than wait a half an hour for the bus in the.rain and the snow and the cold. Next comment; I see no compensation for the town of the wear and tear on the road during this time period when the trucks used in the construction of the 106 plus or minus townhouse units will be degrading our neighborhood roads. Next comment; the traffic study fails to take into account the cumulative effects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 17 of all developments. It does not mention the impact on traffic due to snow and construction, which we have for about half of the year, and the impact due to trains which we have every day. These are my conclusions. I am asking the board, as others have, to please step back and take a big picture view of what is happening on the West Hill. I realize that this may not be your call, but I want to say it for the record. Project by project, bit by bit developers have significantly altered what was once beautiful about the West Hill. And the Town has justified these ungangly developments by citing an outdated 1993 comprehensive plan and this plan has failed miserably at protecting existing West Hill neighborhoods. Before compounding our problems on the West Hill, please address the current problems, the lack of infrastructure, the fire safety issues, the burgeoning traffic, issues that other West Hill residents have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 S spoken of publically and repeatedly. There has been no formal consideration of the cumulative impact of developments on the West Hill and the fundamental lack of foresight is putting the West Hill on the fast track for linear sprawl. We are losing our green space, our view of the lake and fields, our peace and quiet and everything that residents love about the West Hill. Thank you very much. MR. KANTER: And why don't we leave, if there are questions for clarification. Does anyone have any questions for clarification on those points? Thank you for being very detailed and succinct. And I think everyone understands that it's not that we're going to.try to answer these questions. The whole point is to get feedback and that's what the comments will be addressed in the final document. If there's time at the end, we may ask the applicants if they have some general responses to some of what you heard today and staff. Next. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 MR. INGRAHAM: Hi. My name is Tony Ingraham and I live at 368 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca. And I'm also on the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. And on its Environmental Review Committee and Scenic Resources Committee. MS. HOFFMAN: I'm Eva Hoffman, as some of you remember me. I've been on this board. I'm also on the Conservation Board on the same two committees that John is and you know both of us because-we are with the town. MR. INGRAHAM: Okay. So our Environmental Review Committee met last week to go over the'DEIS and see if we had any concerns and we had a few. The concerns revolved around visual impacts, the clearing of trees, private driveways and the entrances. And, Eva, you can, we are going to go over,a draft memo that we are going to give to you for the next planning board meeting, but if you have anything to throw in. MS. TERWILLIGER: Can you make sure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 the mic is on? MR. INGRAHAM: Okay. First of all with visual impact, the DEIS did have a number of photographs taken from places around the town from which the site was potentially visible including some of the most significant views in the town as identified by the Conservation Board and the survey and study done this summer by the town planning department, but not all. I'm going to refer to perhaps the most significant view that was not actually in the town, which is in the DEIS but at view point 3A, Route 13 from Cayuga Heights exit showing West Hill. Now it's almost in the town. The viewpoint doesn't show views from Route 13 as it goes down the hill into the town. This is the view essentially coming down Route 13 from Triphammer area on the Cayuga Heights exit where the valley opens up to you and welcome to Ithaca. And the DEIS shows a visualization of the development in that photograph. There are little vertical squares, I guess rectangles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 put across there that are black outlines, but with no filling in showing what the actual color of the building might be there. It's just sort of put in there. Even still it's really quite visible in the photograph, the entire development. So I think this is the most important impact visual in the study in that it really kind of jumps in your face. And I think the impact, the visual impact, I think we agree it's a visual impact that is most in need of mitigation. So one thing that would help with this visualization that they have done is to actually show these buildings colored in as buildings as they might appear because it's a little deceptive. We certainly know where, it's quite prominent, but nowhere near what it's like to be in reality in our opinion. Possible mitigation to this could include drastically reducing the size of the development particularly in areas that might be visible from this entrance to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 Ithaca. And also requiring earth tones on the buildings that blend with the hill so it'.s not going to jump out at you. If you put white buildings out there and like uhh, why did they do that. So, also, those, this shows from the Cayuga Heights exit coming into Ithaca. It doesn't show farther down the hill. They haven't taken photographs further down the hill. As you come down the hill, Ithaca spreads out before you and it's a wonderful site and the West Hill is definitely visible there. You should be watching the road, but maybe not everybody in the car is driving. It would be good to have that visualization as well, again with the buildings. I would say in all of the photographs they ought to have the buildings depicted and colored in realistically as to what they would look like rather than just saying well it would be over there. So I'm going to go to viewpoint seven from Route 96B, the Ithaca College business campus which is on the downhill side of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Route 96B. I'm looking at, this out to you later in the looking at a printout of it. the lake, West Hill, but not I'm not sure why they picked because as they do elsewhere Zow I'll send memo. I'm You can see very well. that one refer to our 23 most important view survey, they didn't include the much more prominent view which is up the hill at Long View where the long view is which is probably the top three views in the town as done by the survey. So they didn't consider that or anywhere else along the road. So this isn't the really the most visible place they included. Also they didn't put any view point from Ithaca College across from the road. I know that is not a state highway, but thousands of people as we know in the community and from elsewhere do get the view of the Town of Ithaca and Cayuga Lake and the west shore from there and its very prominent views from campus. And if you're in the stadium at a football game, you see 24 1 it all. So that's why we suggest we get 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 W some more views in the study from these other locations and evaluate the impacts. But again, the mitigation is reduce the size of the development, the number of buildings and earth tones in the buildings that will blend in the hill so it's not going to be so stark and also particularly look at where and what buildings would be visible from where. Now there are some other issues having to do with on the site itself in terms of trees. And on the landscape plan, let's see, figure, I can't read, 210 landscape design. And I guess you can see it over there. There are three drainage ponds that are necessary in the plan. And then to the, the third drainage pond on the left, the left of there is an area that in their landscape plan diagram shows that being clear. If that were clear, that might open up these buildings to be visible from East Hill and the highway and the communities over there. And also between the buildings on the upper side that they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 show on that picture there and those ponds, it looks like they plan to reduce the number of trees and perhaps putting in plantings. I don't know what it is, but it would be preferable to have a lot more foliage, tall foliage left from there around the ponds. I know that people in the buildings look out their windows maybe would like to see the pond and maybe like to see across the lake, but then everybody else gets to see them. And also be behind the left -hand side of the development, the lower part there's another area of trees up to the edge of the property more or less or at least halfway up. If those trees were to be removed, that would open up views of the existing buildings along Route 96 including the School of Massage which is one of the tallest buildings along there. So we ask that that pond, that that not happen, that those trees not be removed on both sides of the building. So that would be another way to minimize the visibility both from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 eastside, but also from Route 96 itself. These buildings may be more visible if they remove trees on that side. MR. KANTER: We're going to change the tape. MR. HOWE: Tony, in your written response will you be very clear the area that you just referenced? MR. INGRAHAM: Yes, I will. Did you want to talk about the driveways? MS. HOFFMAN: One of the things that was very striking in looking at the site plans were all the different driveways, one for each unit. And it seemed an excessive amount of pavement on the surface on this hillside with drainage problems. So I would like to urge the applicant and the planning board to look at trying to create more shared driveways and do the layout in a different way so that that would work. There are these little, next to each driveway in each building there is like a little cutout which I suppose is supposed to be private space for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 homeowners, but that could all be redesigned so that the houses would be next to each other and share a driveway and would have more green to look on instead of driveways with cars in them. So that would be one thing to be a very good move to try to change. What was the other comment we had? Yes. We were very disappointed to see in the more recent papers that there had been attempts to try to get an entrance and exit via the hospital property to the north and that the hospital had denied that or not gone along with it. And I wish it would be possible for you to prevail on the hospital to try,to be a better neighbor and to create fewer traffic problems for everybody in this area. Now I should add that part of the reason we are here is to gather more information. We have written a draft of comments, but we are trying to get more information to write up a more informed and detailed set of comments for you for the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 S next time you will meet. MR. INGRAHAM: I'd just like to say one more thing about the idea of an entrance going to the hospital's road. You know, I understand the hospital is not interested in that. But with the extra entrance on Route 96, obviously that could create some traffic problems having another entrance. We have a light and we have two entrances for this development, a lot more traffic and I would just suggest that there might be more visits to the hospital as a result of this entrance being connected to the hospital road. MR. KANTER: Thank you. Any clarification? MR. WILCOX: Just.one thing just so I'm clear, Tony and Eva, both of you are here as members of the Conservation Board this evening? MR. INGRAHAM: That's correct. MS. HOFFMAN: Yes, but specifically as the Environmental Review Committee and the Senior Resources. We have a lot of 24 1 comments about scenic view. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 MR. WILCOX: And for the record, Eva, how many years did you serve on the board? MS. HOFFMAN: The first year was 1977. MR. KANTER: Thank you very much. Someone else who would like -- Warren. MR. ALLMON: Warren Allmon, 2084 Summer Drive, but I'm here representing the Paleontological Research Institution. I also will be submitting formal comments on behalf of PRI to the planning board, but I just want to emphasize a couple of things, none of which are new, maybe a couple are new. The first, to just reemphasize what I've said many times before which is the traffic study that was done for this project is remarkably similar to the traffic study done for our project and the reason that you didn't require us to do something more drastic with traffic for the Museum of the Earth was our traffic peaks were not coincident with the traffic peaks for the rush minutes that exists along in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 the medical center and the town city line. Now the Holochuck property will not have that excuse. And 100 or 200 cars will make that rush minute no longer a rush minute. You can sit at the top of our driveway, the PRI driveway now for up to five or seven minutes at 5:00 trying to get out. So I just want to reiterate that. I didn't think the study was, that we had done was all that great, but of course I didn't want to say that at the time. MR. WILCOX: Be careful. You may be back. MR. ALLMON: And then I want to segue into I guess my most general point which is that I understand there are a number of different planning initiatives going on at this moment. And there is the Route 96 corridor. There is the town revisiting its comprehensive plan. There is the town -city interaction. My plea is just that somebody somewhere try to bring all of these together prior to going ahead with this project. If this project is going to go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 31 ahead, then please don't have it go ahead and then a year later decide that no new development is or isn't the right way to go. I hear different things about when all of these plans are going to come to fruition, but the sidewalks for example. It is very seriously dangerous to walk on Route 96 in front of PRI and people do it, but it's really, really dangerous. And we've talked to the town, we've talked to the county about the possibility of putting in sidewalks between the Medical Center. We talked to the Medical Center about trying to come up with a comprehensive plan to put sidewalks between the medical center and the city line. It would absolutely have to be done if this project were to go forward. Where is that money going to come from? I personally am of two minds. I think the cluster nodal development idea is the right one for a whole bunch of reasons that's spelled out in the traffic, in the 96 corridor study and obviously one of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 32 those nodes is going to be around the hospital. So I'm kind of resigned to this project happening in one form or another, however, I am absolutely still incredibly opposed to the location of the north driveway because it will impact PRI for decades ahead. As you all know we don't own, but we have the benefit of the owner of the massage school building, which is called future PRI LLC, and we will some day use that building, maybe 10 or 20 years from now, but then there will be a two lane road right on the south end of that property. I have had several conversations with some of you about this. And I said I would go and talk to the owners of the third little piece of the former Odd Fellows Complex, the Laurers. I have talked with the Laurers and we have not been able to reach an agreement yet on how to move that driveway from between the future PRI and the Laurers to the south side of the 24 1 Laurers' property. Perhaps making that a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 33 crossroad with the fire station across the way. There's discussion I know about Cornell developing the use of the property on the west side of 96. And some discussion about an access road to that. It would make sense to them I guess to put a crossroad where the fire station is somewhere. If there is going to be a light there, then that's going to back up traffic right in front of the PRI driveway etcetera, etcetera. All the more reason to make this part a comprehensive plan for the entire area instead of just doing it piecemeal. And again I hear the same thing from all the various little jurisdictions here as well. You know, that planning process is proceeding independently from this one. That can't possibly -- well, it will possibly happen, but it really shouldn't possibly happen. And we appreciate the flexibility that Holochuck has shown in not putting housing directly to the east of the Museum of the Earth. We are grateful for that. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 34 And if and when this project goes ahead, we will certainly work with them to provide access from our customers to what will then be state park land through the little square that we will share with Holochuck and the hospital to, directly to the east of the Museum of the Earth. So I do want to express my appreciation to them for that. We will also be submitting formal comments, thank you. MR. KANTER: Any clarifying questions? MS. ERB: I would love to see on the map exactly where Mr. Allmon thinks the road should be. MR. ALLMON: I'll show it to you and everybody else. Right now it's here. The only option I see is to put it here. I'm sorry. Here. And that's what we propose to do. MS. ERB: Two lots south. South end, two lots south. MR. ALLMON: Current right of way. MR. BOSAK: So this would be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35 painfully clear the issue about that is , that the proposed road will divide the property you hope eventually -- MR. ALLMON: And even if you don't, even if you don't some day own this, it will be right on the edge of the property we already control and that I know down the line will be. MR. CONNEMAN: Another question. If there is an infrastructure study that allows us to go through the hospital thing, what would that do to you guys? MR. ALLMON: If the exit road went through the hospital? MR. CONNEMAN: The exit road went up to the light and then out. MR. ALLMON: If I was the hospital, I know what I would think of that, but here from where I sit, I don't have -- MR. CONNEMAN: I don't want to know what the hospital thinks. I want to know what you think. MR. ALLMON: PRI would not, would not be negatively impacted except insofar as we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 36 have to'cross that road to go down the hill to the state land. So in other words we're going to, we're going to walk from the museum, down the hill through the little piece that is at the north end of the Holochuck property. And now we would, if the exit road goes to the hospital, this is actually one of the things, the only thing I like about it on going through the hospital is that we can just walk down the hill which is what we can do now. But other than that, it would not have any negative. MR. BOSAK: I think a pedestrian route would solve that problem. MR. ALLMON: Yes. MS. ERB: It's not going to be that busy. If it existed between the cul -de -sac and the hospital and state property, it wouldn't be that busy and it would, and even the peaks would not be the same time you would be using it, so. MR. ALLMON: And so for those reasons we don't have as many objections, nowhere 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 37 near the objections to that as we would where the present driveway is. MR. KANTER: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. BAKER: My name is Lynn Baker. Nancy and I live on that little triangular lot where Bundy Road hits Trumansburg Road. The secondary driveway, which is on the right side of the map, I can't quite make out exactly where it is. It's within a few feet of coming straight into our driveway on the opposite side. And everybody's brought up traffic here and I would just reiterate that again. That's not signalized as far as I understand and I'm not an engineer and I haven't had a chance to study this, but I don't believe that driveway is signalized. So especially in the morning it's less people making left, most of the people living here are commuting across town. It's all certainly true. Very challenging, trust me. If, somebody mentioned, the previous speaker mentioned sidewalks. I have walked with my wife's medical condition up to the 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 hospital along this road. It is quite a busy light to walk up through there. So you definitely need sidewalks up through there. I guess, yeah, I also have the reaction in a general sense this kind of development makes sense. I,can't argue with that. But the scale size of this thing is something like doubling the number of stand alone residential units in this neighborhood. It's a huge impact. And it's simply the existing homeowners are going to take a ding from all the density and the traffic, you know, all'the negative impacts of this so, you know, I'm of two minds. Lofty idea, but the immediate area is going to get dinged and I don't know how eventually it will sort out. I suspect all the individual residents will end up leaving when it becomes so untenable living along there with the traffic densities. It's just too noisy. It's too everything. And this is really a jump up, the amount of vehicles moving in and out of this area. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 39 Thank you. MR. WILCOX: If I may. Your comment near the end the development makes sense, by that you mean the clustering at the top of the hill and the open space below I take it? MR. BAKER: The idea of not chewing up massive amounts of rural landscape. Three acre well, septic system. You've all heard. It's an untenable motif going 10, 20, 30 years. On the other hand, it's going to beat up the people in the immediate neighborhood because it's a huge jump in density, in the area. MS. ERB: Are you going to give up your front yard for the sidewalk? MR. BAKER: Yeah. I mean, if it came to that. I mean, people walk across our yard anyways. It's a long walk. If they would just quit throwing trash. MR. WILCOX: Thank you. MS. ERB: Thank you. MR. KANTER: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. WILLIAM: My name is Adrian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 M William. I would like to register a few concerns I have about this project. I hope to submit written copies before the period closes. The first, the question about process. I'm looking at the other hearing statements on the advertisement and at the bottom in the first paragraph it's about the DEIS. And the second part is this public hearing is also to consider public comments regarding preliminary subdivision approval. And my question is is this customary to be talking about preliminary approval at this stage? It seems to me on the face of it a little premature. MR. KANTER: We're not really talking, it's just that there is enough information there that we are certainly open to comments, but that will come later in the process. We really will be talking about the plan until we agree on the final DEIS. MR. WILLIAM: So is it possible for you to say no at the stage of the DEIS, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 rM environmental impact is too much? MR. KANTER: The lawyer might not -- MS. BROCK: We're not going to do anything right now. The public hearing has to close first and then the planning board has to make findings before it can make any decisions on the approval. The reason the hearing is being held is because under SEQRA and town law it says to do that. It's possible to hold them together. This is actually very common to do it this way. MR. WILLIAM: Then it does initiate a sort of inevitability of the process. It seems like at some point this development is going to reach preliminary approval and at some point it's going to reach final approval. So on the face of it it is a little troubling to me to be honest with you. MS. BROCK: I just want to say we will consider approval. That doesn't mean the planning board, it doesn't imply an affirmative or negative response from them. But they will consider approval at some 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 w point. If we get through the SEQRA process and make their findings, I mean, there are a number of things that have to happen first. MR. WILLIAM: Sure. I understand that. MS. RIHA: For clarification, if there was a negative effect on the DEIS? MS. BROCK: Then the positive declaration that's why we do the DEIS. MS. RIHA: But so then if we didn't accept the DEIS? MS. BROCK: Well, you've accepted it for public comments. MS. RIHA: Right. MS. BROCK: And at some point there will be a final DEIS prepared which actually means it's under your complete control. MS. RIHA: Right. MS. BROCK: And then you make your findings. And so if you feel there are certain impacts that need certain mitigations, that would be where you would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 43 say that or if you feel there are impacts -- MR. WILCOX: That can't be mitigated. MS: BROCK: -- that can't be mitigated, you say that. And then you, and you make any other findings that, you know, you can make based on the information. MS. RIHA: And all of that would happen before we go into -- MS. BROCK: That's correct. Before you then consider an approval, you have to have your findings and then base your actual approvals on the information and findings. MR. BOSAK: And the findings of fact take place in the proceedings? MS. BROCK: Yes. MR. WILLIAM: First I want to talk about the wetlands. I know there are several small pockets of wetlands on this property and I understand one of them is slated to be protected. The other one as I understand it would be destroyed. And the developers talk about the fact that these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I / small wetlands are, quote unquote, unregulated, not regulated by the DEC and not regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. And I would submit that this is not sufficient reason to allow these wetlands, though they are small, to be destroyed. And I would point to the Nick Shapansky report to the county that came out a couple years ago talking about just these sorts of kinds of wetlands that need further regulatory protection by local municipalities and so I would urge you to look carefully at those. I think the loss of woodlands and forest is a significant impact as the conservation board members pointed out. And especially if some of these trees are going to be cut just for the sole purpose of allowing the future homeowners a nice view of the lake. I don't think that's sufficient reason both in terms of the visual impact for the rest of the town and the city, but also for the environmental impact on the landscape. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 45 The soils seem very problematic in terms of building and for the roads and the developers acknowledge this in their DEIS and I think given the problematic soils and in combination with the steep slopes, this is a very difficult and dangerous situation. So I would encourage this board to be very scrupulous in looking at the poor soils in combination with the steep slopes and whether in fact those impacts can be adequately mitigated. Finally, I would reiterate what a number of people said tonight which are the traffic impacts. I think there are going to be tremendous, both for town residents and city residents, and it doesn't seem to me appropriate for this board to be considering allowing this development to go forward without waiting for the town board's projected traffic study in this area. So I would urge you to wait until that further study gets completed. In fact I don't see how this scale of a development can proceed without having a tremendous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 W. impact on the traffic situation in the West Hill. And so my modest proposal, if we were going to somehow modify this plan to make it work, would be to create a car free development. So eliminate all of the driveways and eliminate the roads and put a couple of,car share cars at one end, then we might actually be talking about a sustainable and practical solution, but as it is now I don't see how it can work. MR. KANTER: Any questions? MR. WILCOX: The gentleman referred to a traffic study that will be done by the town. I'm confused. MR. WILLIAM: I think it was mentioned earlier the town, and correct me if I'm wrong, has allocated funds for another study on West Hill. And that is what I was referring to. But they haven't talked about the specifics of what that would entail. MR. WILCOX: The money has been, is in the 2010 budget. Has there been, but 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 47 there has been no authorization to actually expend that money, if you will? MR. BATES: Well, there has been no scope for the study. . MR. WILCOX: Okay. Okay. The assumption is it will occur at some point. MR. BATES: At some point is the key word because we don't know exactly when it will happen and how it will correspond to the county planning committees going in and a number of other things MR. BOSAK: Yes. They have asked us to delay until certain things happen, until other agencies. Susan, can tell us what our latitude is in responding to that? MS. BROCK: Well, under SEQRA there are certain time frames we have to follow. If the applicant and the planning board can agree on extensions, then we can go past the time frames. But we really, the planning board really does not have the ability to indefinitely delay. MR. BOSAK: Thank you. I just wanted that -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I • MR. KANTER: Did you have any other? MR. WILCOX: No. I was thinking about state law on either subdivisions and site plans not acted upon, planning boards are soon to be approved after. We have a lot of work to get to that point but... MS. BROCK: Right. I haven't looked at that in a little while. I believe once the application is complete and until the environmental review process is done I don't think -the application is completed. MR. WILCOX: And then there's something like 62 days or something like that. If we don't act, it's considered approved. MS. BROCK: That's right. MS. ERB: It's the reverse of a pocket veto. MR. KANTER: Would someone else like to address the board? MS. HUNTER: My name is Tee -Ann Hunter. For purposes of disclosure I'm on the town board, but I'm here as a resident of West Hill. Actually I'd rather forego 1 my own comments and ask if you would 2 please, if you could read the comments that 3 you received today by e -mail that you 4 deemed rather long? Do-you think you could 5 read those into the record? I'm kind of in 6 a bad place. I'm a West Hill resident, but 7 I did have someone call me today as a board 8 member wanting to submit comments to the 9 town and have them read into the record and 10 I advised them that they should send you, 11 send the town an e -mail and request that 12 these comments be read into the record.. 13 It's my understanding that they did as much 14 and I guess I would forego my five minutes 15 if indeed those comments could be read into 16 the record. 17 MR. KANTER: Sure. And you don't 18 have to forego your minutes. So again this 19 is a letter, consideration of a moratorium 20 on development on West Hill from Steven 21 Belkirk who lives at 212 Campbell Avenue 22 and he calls it a public safety review. 23 Thank you for the opportunity to 24 1 express my concerns regarding development 50 1 1 1 in the West.Hill area of the Town of 2 Ithaca. When we moved here eight years ago 3 everyone was breathing a sigh of relief 4 that some of the traffic issues involving 5 the octopus had been addressed. 6 Regrettably alleviating this critical 7 problem seems in the intervening years to 8 have become an invitation to create it all 9 over again. So my first words to the 10 planning committee is let's not repeat the 11 mistakes of the past. Roads were brought 12 up to a level of marginally serving a daily 13 influx and exodus from the west side of the 14 lake and now increasing development 15 threatens all of the progress. Others have 16 relayed their concerns to the committee and 17 town board about the capacities of water 18 and sewer to handle more development. I 19 and will now repeat that point. I'd 20 lecho ask you to listen to them intently. 21' Others have also expressed dismay 22 with a clustering of low income housing on 23 1 West Hill, but not South Hill nor East 24 1 Hill. I concur with their distress and of 51 1 long -term residents victimized by West Hill 2 crime as well as those reforming their 3 1 dines so declared low income housing 4 1 Isections of West Hill places I have to stay 5 away from if I'm going to turn my life 6 around. These matters should be compelling 7 enough to require a moratorium on 8 development, but there are more things for 9 consideration. 10 I regret my work requires that I 11 cannot be before the committee in person. 12 1 extend this letter and am available for 13 further conversation with the committee at 14 a future date should you so desire. I 15 would like to address the needs for a 16 moratorium to development on West Hill from 17 a public safety perspective. 18 Though I live on West Hill, I serve 19 the Town of Ithaca out of my workplace as a 20 volunteer firefighter on the northeast 21 corner of Cayuga Heights Fire Department. 22 My comments are mine alone and do not 23 reflect the Cayuga Heights Fire 24 Dle artment's officers directors Villa p r r e g 52 1 of Cayuga Heights nor the Ithaca Fire 2 Department with whom we have a mutual aid 3 agreement. 4 The roadways are the arteries of 5 public safety. Jam them up and they will 6 not come in a timely way. The hospital and 7 station six are both on the main artery of 8 Route 96 /Cliff Street. An overload of this 9 roadway will result in a delay of emergency 10 services. This should be considered from 11 three fronts. 12 Number one; ambulances are garaged in 13 the Bangs building on State Street. They 14 ire not, contrary to public perception, 15 garaged at the hospital nor station six. 16 The road planning must maintain the best 17 access from State Street and through the 18 route to the hospital. Though an ambulance might 19 respond from the hospital after a 20 patient discharge, that proximity to the 21 needs of West Hill is by-accident, not 22 design. The increasing congestion is an 23 J,ncreasing delay in critical medical 24 1 response, not just to West Hill, but for 53 1 the entire community in their utilization 2 of emergency medicine at the Cayuga Medical 3 Center. 4 Number two; station six is not 5 adequately staffed to extinguish a working 6 fire. Station six is routinely staffed 7 with two firefighters /EMTs on one engine. 8 Its response is coordinated with a second 9. engine and ladder from the central station 10 on Green Street. Technical operations for 11 a working structure fire engine, one 12 operator for each apparatus, one incident 13 commander, usually the officer of the first 14 engine until a more senior commander 15 arrives. And most importantly the two in 16 and two out rule. Two equally trained and 17 quick firefighters for the two or more 18 inside the IDLH environment. That stands 19 for incidents dangerous to life and health. 20 This two in two out rule is a Federal OSHA 21 requirement. In short, if there is any 22 delay in response of engine and ladder from 23 central station, station six firefighters 24 cannot, A, search for and rescue trapped 54 1 victims nor, B, commence extinguishable 2 operations. Unless firefighters ignore 3 safety directives, station six is of no 4 meaningful fire service to West Hill by 5 itself. 6 From early assessment and operations 7 set up, station six and its personnel are 8 invaluable. If manpower and equipment from 9 central cannot get there in a timely way, 10 firefighter safety is compromised, 11 operations are suspended and the potential 12 for firefighter injury or fatality 13 increases. At this time, confirmed in 14 conversation with the Fire Chief Brian 15 Willur, station six is not OSHA compliant 16 with its configuration. Despite the town 17 commitment and professionalism of the 18 Ithaca Fire Department and particularly 19 those stationed on West Hill, the situation 20 of public fire and medical attention on 21 West Hill is tenuous at best. In view of 22 proposed developments to actively make 23 decisions that will add to the call volume 24 1 on one hand and increase the traffic load 55 1 tht must be negotiated by responses from 2 central on the other, would in my 3 estimation be a grossly negligent 4 management to public safety by the Town of 5 Ithaca. 6 Number three, because of the critical 7 emergency public resource the hospital 8 represents, the service capacity must be 9 maintained and traffic flow. In the last 10 year there have been multiple closures by 11 design, but also by accident of one of the 12 main) arteries of West Hill. I live on 13 Campbell Avenue which serves as the primary 14 detour. I have watched buses break, semis 15 jacoknife and passenger cars get stuck on 16 this little byway which is the only link 17 between station six, CMC and the rest of 18 West Hill when things break on Route 19 96 /Cliff Street and Route 79 /Hector. I 20 have been in the traffic backed up more 21 than a mile and seen a commute stretch to 22 half an hour just to get off the hill. 23 Current capacity is questionable and 24 reserve capacity to provide public safety 56 1 when something breaks is nonexistent. 2 As one better equipped than most to 3 assess this, I do not feel at this time 4 that the West Hill infrastructure is 5 sufficient to serve the needs of public 6 safety. So in the interest of basic public 7 safety, I urge a moratorium on West Hill 8 development until such time as a new 9 roadway is constructed to deliver traffic 10 to multiple points beyond the octopus. 11 Thank you for your attention to this 12 situation. Steven Belkirk. 13 MR. KANTER: Yeah, would you like to. 14 MS. HUNTER: I didn't read it. 15 MR. WILCOX: Do you know Mr. Belkirk? 16 Have you talked to him? 17 MS. HUNTER: Yes. 18 MR. WILCOX: Do you anticipate 19 talking to him again? 20 MS. HUNTER: I don't talk to him 21 routinely. 22 MR. WILCOX: If you should, my only 23 commenit is, first of all I thank him for 24 his comments. His subject line is for 57 1 public reading at the planning committee 2 meelting and at the end he urges a 3 moratorium. So I wonder if he, if he needs 4 to lunderstand that his remarks need to get 5 to the planning committee, the three 6 members, the three members of the town 7 board as opposed to the planning committee. 8 That's all I want to make sure. 9 MS. HUNTER: I will relay that. 10 MR. WILCOX: I suspect there is some 11 confusion. 12 MS. HUNTER: I'm sorry. I forego my 13 five minutes. 14 MR. KANTER: Is there anything you 15 want to say? 16 MS. HUNTER: No, there isn't. Thank 17 you very much. 18 R. BOSAK: Just a mechanical 19 question for Chris. Is the attachment 20 referred to up here the same letter? 21 MS. BALESTRA: It's the same letter. 22 MR. KANTER: Anyone else that would 23 like to address this? Rich. 24 MR. DEPAULO: I'm Rich DePaulo. I'm i 1 here as a, the first half of my statement 2 will be as a citizen and then I will switch 3 hats. I'm here tonight to talk about the 4 Odd Fellows dump. This dump has been known 5 about for some time, but was not properly 6 reported by the Department of Health to the 7 DEC, therefore it's not in the hazardous 8 waste disposable site registry. If the 9 site was properly reported, it would 10 probably receive a classification 2A which 11 is a hazardous waste site that requires 12 further data. Open dumps pose significant 13 environmental risks regardless of their 14 age. Some have argued that older dumps 15 have leached out all of their contaminants 16 and therefore pose no risk, however, the 17 older dump the more potentially dangerous 18 the dumps are due to disposal practices, 19 changes in disposal practices over the 20 decades. This site should be fully 21 delineated and investigated particularly if 22 it's underneath a building footprint. I 23 don't believe anybody knows exactly where 24 it is. I would like to see the site 59 1 investigated regardless of that fact. I 2 think abandoned landfills are a problem in 3 Tbmpkins County, believe it or not. It is 4 incumbent upon people who wish to develop 5 those lands to, should be incumbent upon 6 them to investigate the extent of 7 contamination on their property. For that 8 reason I don't think it's unreasonable to 9 rescope the DEIS or to require a 10 supplemental DEIS related to investigation 11 and potential mitigation of that dump. 12 Now I will switch hats and talk to 13 you as a member of the town board. And I 14 think what I've heard tonight from a number 15 of speakers is that this is not, I fully 16 acknowledged upfront this is more town 17 board purview than a planning board 18 purview, but I think what we're hearing 19 repeatedly is that people want to know more 20 about cumulative impacts, not just in terms 21 of traffic, but in terms of water and 22 sewer. Just general quality of life 23 issues. And it's the planning board's 24 1 responsibility to look at these projects as :1 1 they come along and you do a great job at 2 that. However, you know, we can 3 essentially look at projects in a vacuum 4 and come up with the conclusion that they 5 are fine in and of themselves without 6 realizing what the cumulative impact is 7 going to be. We have not only Holochuck 8 property, but the Cornell property behind 9 the fire station, the Caramore development, 10 which even though it's serviced by another 11 major artery, it is no doubt going to 12 affect overall quality of life in West 13 Hill. Dr. Kiyan has been trying to unload 14 his property for four years now and that 15 will be zoned to be high density 16 residential in its use, between 2 or 4,000 17 people, or excuse me, 2 and 6,000 people 18 congregated in a one mile radius around the 19 hospital. And we have the yet unknown 20 plans of whoever ends up with the balance 21 of the Biggs property once that gets 22 subdivided. It' was subdivided I believe. 23 But, okay. 24 MR. WILCOX: No, it has not been. 61 1 MS. BROCK: We've just received, it's 2 just starting. The process is just 3 starting. 4 MR. DEPAULO: That is cooking. So 5 the concept of a general environmental 6 impact statement for West Hill has been 7 brought up as a way to try to quantify 8 these cumulative impacts. This is 9 obviously just a concept and I don't know 10 how it affects the development proposal 11 before you tonight, but that would 12 prlesumably incorporate some of the traffic 13 studies that we've talked about earlier. 14 1 1 But with respect to the, I don't have 15 1 an'y particular comments with respect to 16 this DEIS other than I question some of the 17 assumptions in the traffic portion of the 18 DEIS with respect to the number of trips 19 gelerated during the day and the direction 20 that people will take when they leave 21 Hoiochuck in the morning hours. I wonder 22 whether or not it is reasonable to assume 23 thl,t 40 percent of the traffic will head 24 1 north on Route 96 considering that those 62 1 flks who presumably would buy residences 2 at Holochuck probably won't be working at 3 the hospital unless they are physicians 4 and it's not likely that -- I'm just 5 assuming that physicians would more likely 6 live in Cayuga Heights or somewhere else 7 thin a single family lot. But that is my 8 generalization, but I would ask that 9 whatever you're doing to supplement the 10 information on traffic in the DEIS, I would 11 ask that you pay close attention to that. 12 MR. KANTER: Any questions for him? 13 Susan. 14 MS. RIHA: I had one, maybe more for 15 Susan. In terms of the findings made it 16 clelar there is a lot of statements about 17 potential lack of infrastructure, whether 18 it'i fire departments, police protection, 19 roads, alternative roads and so on, and as 20 part of the kind of findings mitigation, 21 would the planning board be able to say 22 that those kind of things the town would 23 have to make a commitment to supply those 24 types of services or is that outside of our 63 1 purview? 2 MS. BROCK: I don't think you can 3 require the town to make any kind of 4 commitment. Especially when it's the town 5 board, would have to get funds and 6 undertake projects. What you can say is 7 there, this is all hypothetical, but you 8 could say there are certain impacts and 9 they cannot be acceptably mitigated unless 10 X, Y and Z were to happen with 11 infrastructure, with community services, 12 etcetera. And so then if that 13 infrastructure for traditional services 14 were put in place and there was no plan to 15 do so, that would inform your decision on 16 the approval of the subdivision. 17 MR. KANTER: Is there anyone else who 18 would like to address the board? 19 MR. BRITTAIN: Hi, everybody. I live 20 at 135 Warren Road. The only part of the 21 DEIi I looked at was traffic. I spent a 22 couple days on that. I cannot comment on 23 the adequacy of the rest of it. Traffic, 24 you probably know there are a few problems M 1 yourself. One issue I preferably raise is 2 on page 3.63 when it talks about Cliff 3 Street, they give the average daily traffic 4 counts for Route 13 instead. So that may 5 1 be easily corrected, but it should be done. 6 Another technical mistake I think on 7 figure 3.62, which is existing a.m. peak 8 hours of traffic. If you look at the 9 traffic counts they are presenting at the 10 hospital entrance, the hospital, what's it 11 called West Hill Drive. 12 MS. RIHA: Which figure? 13 MR. BRITTAIN: 3.62, the second one. 14 MS. ERB: Let us get there first. 15 1 MR. BRITTAIN: The second map. If 16 you look at the traffic counts for the 17 hospital entrance you will notice what they 18 are saying happens in the morning, 65 cars 19 come from Trumansburg turn into that new 20 housing development. Strikes me as being a 21 lot more that 65. There are a lot more 22 coming in according to them than going out 23 during the morning rush hour. I don't 24 1 think I've ever seen it that low. It may 65 1 be what happened with whomever did that 2 count got left and right mixed up. Maybe 3 it was 70 was supposed to go in there 4 instead of 65. And of course the rest of 5 their traffic estimates are all based on 6 existing conditions so if this is 7 incorrect, those would have to be corrected 8 as well. Okie dokie. There is that one 9 down. 10 Somebody else already commented about 11 the level of services CBC. A little honest 12 mistake. I just want to point out that as 13 with most developers what seems to happen 14 is the level of services is calculated and 15 yes, it's consistent throughout the report, 16 but the calculations do not always agree 17 with reality. So if they went out and 18 measured the delays in the intersections, 19 they probably would have gotten different 20 numbers than the ones they got calculated. 21 I don't know what you do about it. 22 Directional distribution, they are 23 saying 60 percent comes towards the city. 24 That's very unrealistic. There is no M 1 documentation for that. If you look at the 2 other driveways, even West Hill Drive it's 3 more like, depending on which day you look 4 at, if you ignore the morning commute they 5 got wrong, seems more like 80, 86 percent 6 of the trips in and out of there are coming 7 toward the city. So it should be I think 8 80 percent anyway as a directional 9 distribution. Again you should be able to 10 do traffic counts. What do most people do 11 when they come out of their driveway, which 12 way do they turn. 13 The trip generation rates, again 14 someone else already brought this up. I 15 realize what the easy thing to do is look 16 at a trip generation manual and it asks you 17 whether you live in a townhouse and during 18 peak hour, each unit is going to have .6 19 trips during rush hour. That may be a 20 national average, but in many ways Ithaca 21 is not typical. I would not be at all 22 surprised if we are not considerably more 23 than that. We should be able to find out 24 what they are for Ithaca. All you have to 67 1 do is take an apartment complex or 2 cul -de -sac with an appropriate type of 3 houses on it, someplace where there are a 4 low number of housing units and then look 5 at the traffic. Then you put a traffic 6 counter across their driveway and you find 7 out that, you know, 100 houses on these 8 little loop roads and they make X number of 9 trips per day and you divide and now you 10 know for Ithaca what is a more appropriate 11 trip generation rate. So this is data that 12 we may have some of it if you look around, 13 but I presume it could be calculated if we 14 have the data or take some counts and get 15 numbers that may be more realistic than the 16 ones they are using. 17 Cliff Street, Cliff Street is getting 18 nailed, face it. None of us would want to 19 live there. Anything that happens on West 20 Hill is going to make it worse. One way 21 that people typically look at traffic is to 22 say, you know, this street already has so 23 much, we have so many feet per second. But 24 1 � instead if you look at, imagine the road 1 you're trying to study. Cars just 2 1 following each other as close as they can. 3 The road is full. If you actually looked 4 at the road, it's mostly space, but the car 5 needs space in front of it to be able to 6 drive. If there aren't any gaps big enough 7 for pedestrians to cross the road, you 8 don't cross the road. If you have, you 9 know, a space every two minutes,. you can 10 cross the road and then someone like 11 Holochuck says well, you'll just add, we're 12 only adding what one car every minute 13 during rush hour, something like that. 14 Okay. So now you have two chances to cross 15 the road, run across the road to see your 16 neighbor because now there's that extra car 17 from Holochuck Homes. Now there is half as 18 many times you can cross the road as there 19 used to be. So -if you compared the 20 increase of traffic to the amount it has, 21 it may sound like it's not a big increase. 22 Instead you look again. What are my 23 chances of seeing a neighbor running down 24 the street after a ball and not get .• 1 squished, whatever happens. A little bit 2 of traffic can make a big difference. 3 Speaking of traffic, their idea of 4 traffic impact on Cliff Street or whatever 5 seems to be your ability to get out of your 6 driveway and I would submit there is much 7 more a disability than ability to drive out 8 of the driveway. As I mentioned crossing 9 the road takes a lot longer. If something 10 happens, you are not protected. I know if 11 you walk the speed my mother does crossing 12 the road, it can take a long time. But 13 each car, and not only are you blocking, 14 like crossing the street opportunities, but 15 there are extra fumes from the cars, extra 16 noise and the privacy that's actually an 17 issue, too. If you live on the street, 18 there are cars going by constantly. It's 19 not a lot of fun. So I think the 20 visibility thing is a little incomplete 21 shall we say. 22 No development, there is not any 23 development. This is just your standard, 24 suburbia, just stick a cul -de -sac off the 70 1 main road and put a bunch of houses on it, 2 1 traffic will go somewhere else. That is 3 not what they are doing. 4 The nodal development got this big 5 push a few years ago. If each node is a 6 self- contained unit like a little village 7 and you can maybe walk to work or if the 8 kids can walk to school and you can walk to 9 your job, then you're not putting traffic 10 on the road. But the only way for people, 11 unless they walk to the hospital to work, 12 which isn't going to be many people, but 13 the only way that you can get anywhere from 14 Holochuck is to drive out onto 96. It's 15 not, that's not nodal. It's more strip 16 development. Little separated from the 17 road, but it's what we're used to. But I 18 think it's an opportunity to actually do 19 better. You cannot be a hospital nodal lithout 20 being connected to the hospital. I 21 understand the hospital may not be ha I PPY 22 about that, but I don't think that is 23 necessarily the final word. If I were the 24 hospital I may say no too with the hope 71 1 that maybe Holochuck would come back and 2 say well, I understand you don't want all 3 this traffic near where the parking lot is 4 for the hospital. Why don't we upgrade it 5 a little bit,-put a buffer, put a few trees 6 along the road, make it look pretty, make 7 it so you can't see the traffic from the 8 hospital and then they might buy into it. 9 The hospital might also buy into it if this 10 is seen as giving them an alternative means 11 of access to the hospital in case there is 12 a tractor trailer across the intersection 13 of where Dates Drive or the hospital, if 14 something happens, how does the ambulance 15 get to the hospital. They can sneak 16 through Holochuck to get there. So I would 17 see it would be to their advantage, to the 18 hospital's advantage to connect. I think 19 with good will and appreciation from all 20 involved with the hospital, it should be 21 possible to connect, which I would actually 22 see as an alternative to the northern 23 driveway which I think would maybe make PRI 24 happy. 72 1 Connecting to Route 89 I notice is 2 not in the cards. It looks like we have a 3 conservation zone in the way now, but I see 4 that is as a loss of opportunity. I think 5 connecting to Route 89 would be a huge 6 benefit. That would be a benefit to the 7 hospital. Again would allow ambulances an 8 alternate way if 96 is plugged. For the 9 Holochuck people it would mean they would 10 not have to take Cliff Street. They could 11 go down to 89 and come in without driving 12 by all these houses. And if you can reduce 13 the number of cars going by houses, I see 14 that as something that should be pursued. 15 So I realize it is a steep hill, but it is 16 to have a road wandering down a possible 17 steep hill. I would refer you to, it 18 i esn't show well, but there is a road 19 behind the hospital. An old abandoned road 20 that goes down to the old heating plant 21 which is where they used to get their coal. 22 You can drive it. But if that were 23 connected to Route 89 or something 24 comparable, you would have an alternate way 73 1 of getting in. You wouldn't be constantly 2 dumping into 96. 3 In fact one thing -- oh, another 4 thing is conservation zone. I know people 5 don't like to put roads through 6 conservation zones, but I would use Cornell 7 plantation as an example. It is possible 8 to have scenic, wandering, attractive low 9 impact roads in visually attractive areas 10 and that works out. As long as the New 11 York State Department of Transportation 12 doesn't build it, it will be nice. 13 Speaking of which, one thing I would 14 like to suggest as an alternative is you 15 could conceivably have a road through here 16 that goes -- well, what looks like upper 17 left to lower right I should say. More 18 west corner connecting to the hospital down 19 to the east 70's corner and sneaking onto 20 that little piece whoever owns that other 21 land and you could hook up to 89 down near 1) 1) he Hanger Theater. Now we would have a ay fairly directly for let's say the mbulances to get to the hospital or 74 1 potentially take some of the traffic that's 2 currently on Cliff Street. 3 Now the disadvantage of course is 4 putting in'a road to this site and it might 5 make some traffic, but it's good if it 6 makes it an alternative road. But what you 7 would have to do is make sure you do not 8 have housing units directly on any thru 9 road. And I notice what we are doing here 10 is there is a road, there is houses on it. 11 That is traffic. So we are setting 12 ourselves up for 20 years they are going to 13 be back saying they have too much traffic. 14 I think we shouldn't really be repeating mistakes 15 of the past. I would suggest 16 that's something to think about. I really 17 think 89 is an important road that should 18 be connected. 19 The Black Diamond Trail, obviously 20 the should be some connection to the 21 lre Black Diamond Trail. If.the road went down 22 there, that would do it. If not, I think, 23 I wals a little sad, shall I say, that the 24 DEISlsaid there is no offsite mitigation 75 1 1 I needed and I would think that if some 2 1 funding were provided to help complete the 3 Black Diamond Trail, that would be very 4 useful to the people who live in this 5 development. And riding those trails is 6 fun and if it gets them out of the car, 7 that's great. Don't expect miracles from 8 the bus there. Perhaps optimistically they 9 are assuming they can get 21 people a day 10 riding the bus. Okay. That's one bus. I 11 think that's pretty much it. 12 I realize this, it's interesting what 13 you guys have to work with is the zoning 14 maps and such and say is this consistent 15 with zoning and is this therefore an 16 appropriate development. But a zoning map 17 doesn't have a time component in that if 18 someone is building a house here on West 19 Hill and you could look and say, yeah, you 20 can build it here, you can build it there, 21 it all zoned residential, you can do it 22 wherever you want. But if all of the 23 developments come at once, whoa, we didn't 24 expect this. So if everything is zoned 76 1 residential, it doesn't necessarily mean 2 that it's okay to have everything 3 residential. It means if you are putting a 4 residence in, you could probably put it 5 anywhere. But if you are having 6 developments coming fast and furiously, 7 then the Cayuga Lake impact is something 8 that zoning map doesn't really address. I 9 don't know if it's up to you to address 10 that or not, but I really think it should 11 be dealt with. The rate of growth on many 12 areas is really a lot higher than people 13 were expecting. I think that's pretty much 14 it. Except to say Happy Hanukkah, Merry 15 Christmas and then I will have an excuse to 16 see you all next year. I hope it turns out 17 well for all of you. 18 MR. BOSAK: You have some expertise 19 in this particular area, don't you? 20 MR. BRITTAIN: Well, I've been, wow, 21 okay, yeah. 22 MR. BOSAK: Thank you. I just need 23 that for the record. You're not speaking 24 just as a man on the street. 77 1 MR. BRITTAIN: Right. Well, Tom 2 Neiderkorn taught me how to do traffic 3 counts when I was in high school for an 4 Eagle Scout project. He's the guy. He's 5 the culprit. I went to engineering school 6 and'it went downhill from there. 7 MR. BOSAK: But I was interested in 8 what you were saying about the connection 9 to 89. I circulated a 1992 plan that came 10 out of our planning department here to 11 actually build a parkway, scenic parkway. 12 But sounds like that is exactly the point 13 you're thinking about ending. So I'm 14 correct in interpreting your comments 15 meaning that in your opinion this is merely 16 a physically practical thing to do. 17 MR. BRITTAIN: I mean, you can't go 18 straight up the hill, but you don't have 19 to. Again if you want an example I a few 20 years ago rode down to the hospital on the 21 abandoned road, but if you want to take the 22 road down to the railroad grade and back 23 up, it's a nice little road. It has pieces 24 of concrete block and stuff on it. 1 MR. WILCOX: I've done it. 2 MR. BRITTAIN: It's a little weird. 3 MR. WILCOX: It's also private, so 4 you just can't go and do it. 5 MS. RIHA: One other question I had 6 when they look at level of service and 7 given the kind of narrowness of the roads 8 and that's basically the only major way to 9 the hospital, is that ever taken into 10 account in terms of level of services, the 11 narrowness? 12 MR. BRITTAIN: The narrowness? 13 MS. RIHA: The narrowness and if 14 that's the only route to maybe only the 15 well equipped. That would be part of the 16 traffic? 17 MR. BRITTAIN: No. The level of 18 services essentially is delay for drivers. 19 I think they did a pretty good job of 20 describing it and it could be level of 21 pedestrians to walk across the street or 22 you could do level of visibility for how 23 long and trying to look down into this or 24 whatever. 79 1 I MS. RIHA: It just seems like an 2 1 important comment brought up in terms of 3 fire engines having to get up these roads 4 and ambulances having to get up these 5 roads. 6 MR. BRITTAIN: If something happens, 7 you're in big trouble. Well, let me, there 8 is one thing maybe I should have mentioned. 9 There is a difference between providing 10 let's say pedestrian facilities and making 11 more inviting pedestrian environments 12 because there are some roads, I realize, I 13 don't think I've ever walked on 96 to PRI, 14 but I don't want to. A lot of the reason 15 is it's too wide and wide roads drivers, 16 they look up from their cell phones every 17 three minutes to make sure they are between 18 the ditches, so you're going to get nailed. 19 So if there are sidewalks, that would help 20 a lot. But C1iff.Street, even if the cars 21 stay on their side of the curb, you're 22 still breathing all the exhaust and they 23 are dominating your experience. It's not 24 going to be a fun place to walk. If I -O 1 lived on Holochuck and there was a sidewalk 2 to Cliff Street, I would drive too. If I 3 can go down to the Black Diamond Trail and 4 walk it, it would actually be nice. So 5 it's not just a facility for the pedestrian 6 and bicyclists. It's the whole environment 7 to look at. Okay. I'm done. Thank you 8 very much. 9 MR. KANTER: Anyone else who wants to 10 address the board? 11 PUBLIC RESPONDER: I think I've told 12 you. I'm allergic to public speaking. 13 Please bear with me. Do I have to identify 14 myself? 15 MR. KANTER: You don't have to. 16 MR. BOSAK: But we need the name for 17 the record. 18 MR. WILCOX: No. 19 MR.. KANTER: No. 20 PUBLIC RESPONDER: You probably know 21 it anyhow. You folks all have the 22 five -page e -mail I sent to you. It 23 probably hasn't gotten to you yet, but I 24 hope you do read it. I am a long -term 1 resident of West Hill on Route 96 and I 2 have a number of concerns and a number of 3, issues with this project. The first and 4 foremost they say this is not a normal 5 development. That's a false bill of goods 6 that we're being sold again on West Hill. 7 No new development is housing built around 8 existing, sufficient infrastructure and 9 close to employers. We've heard, we live 10 on West Hill and we all know Cayuga Medical 11 Center is not adding any new jobs, 12 therefore it does not qualify as your major 13 employer. The infrastructure issues are 14 legendary. Service capacity is an issue. 15 It's a documented issue. Holochuck halfway 16 through Appendix E finally refers to a 17 potential capacity and refers to an already 18 existing capacity issue, so they know it as 19 well. 20 The roads, the traffic. We've heard 21 a lot about the traffic. We can all leave 22 for work five minutes earlier. It's not 23 about time. It's about public safety. 24 Those of us who live on West Hill know. We S 1 experience it daily. I have souvenirs 2 which I'll get to in a moment. Most of 3 Route 96 is impassible. Emergency 4 vehicles, vehicles cannot pull over on most 5 of Cliff Street to let an emergency vehicle 6 pass. There's a guardrail on one side with 7 houses on the other side of the guardrail 8 and there is obviously cliffs on the other 9 side of the road. Seems obvious. Once the 10 road does widen out, it's not actually safe 11 to pass on the road. It's not safe to walk 12 on the road. I want you to look at these 13 things from one of the two accidents in 14 front of my home from yesterday alone, two 15 accidents yesterday, 6:15 a.m., 6 p.m. And 16 neither driver stopped to report an 17 accident. This is not the least bit 18 uncommon. I have walked on 96. I have 19 walked on 96 frequently. It is not 20 pleasant. It is very, very treacherous. I 21 happened to fish these things out of my 22 front lawn at my own peril because the 23 traffic, which was very definitely in 24 excess of the posted 45 miles an hour speed M-K 1 1 1 limit, cars are running over these 2 repeatedly and kicking them farther into my 3 lawn and I wish that it didn't, but there 4 you go. Souvenirs for everyone. 5 We know that those of us who live 6 there we experienced in late summer the 7 semi full of pickled pigs feet overturned 8 on Cliff Street which made the road 9 impassible for at least 11 hours and we 10 alone were without power for those 11 hours 11 and other people were without power for 12 even longer contrary to what the Ithaca 13 Journal reported. 14 We also know that fire safety is an 15 issue. It's no longer opinion. It's a 16 fact. Obviously retired Chief Wilber, 17 Deputy Chief Parsons, I also have 18 documentation from the president of the 19 fire department's union which states 20 station six does not.sufficiently serve 21 those of us currently on West Hill. You 22 are about to add at least 370 more 23 residents who will also be in danger. 24 Even if we have been fortunate enough L- V! 1 1 1 to have station six staffed by these two 2 firefighters who are residents there during 3 the day, there is no backup if the other 4 vehicles from central, from any other fire 5 station can't get through the traffic. If 6 there's a train, we are completely bisected 7 from the rest of the town. No one can 8 reach us. That is the same for emergency 9 vehicles.. You've heard about that already. 10 This is a public safety issue. I'm 11 astounded that we need to continue to come 12 here to point out that this is a public 13 safety issue as if we, the tiny minority 14 representing the town of Ithaca on West 15 Hill, as Mr. Ackerman has publically 16 referred to us, do not matter. I think 17 that he's still entrusted with things like 18 safety and infrastructure on West Hill, 19 regardless of how many residents live 20 there. 21 We know that, TCAT has already stated 22 they are not going to enter into this 23 development. These types of developments 24 with two to three parking spaces per town 85 1 1 1 home don't result in a significant increase 2. in ridership for them. I also know as a 3 to disembark and I am at a justified stop. TCAT rider a minimum of four.days a week 4 11 that even riding TCAT is dangerous on Route 5 to pass there. Doesn't stop anyone. They 96. Constantly every night when I get off 6 14 the bus, cars, again in excess of 45 miles 7 1 1 an hour, speed past a bus pulled over 8 because they can't wait ten seconds for me 9 to disembark and I am at a justified stop. 10 I'm at a bus shelter on Route 96. It's 11 also a double solid line. It's not legal 12 to pass there. Doesn't stop anyone. They 13 are putting everyone's lives at risk. 14 The concept of adding one school bus 15 with two trips a day for a projected six to 16 eight school aged children is ridiculous. 17 Dave Bachrach's e -mail to Miss Akerton 18 actually indicates at least one bus. I 19 think we can all assume those six to eight 20 school aged students aren't going to be the 21 same age, so they are probably going to go 22 to school at different start times which 23 means multiple buses. Open enrollment 24 means more cars on treacherous 96 at peak 1 1 1 hours to take them to their school of 2 1 1 choice. 3 The New York State police in no way 4 endorse this project. I believe the 5 Appendix D that the best that Holochuck had 6 gotten from them is a no comment on the 7 record. The sheriff's department also does 8 not endorse this, although reading some of 9 the body of this draft might get the sense 10 that they do. It's very interesting in 11 Section 3.8.1 police potential impacts, 12 Holochuck tells us that their site would be 13 subject to routine patrols by the county 14 sheriff's department. These don't exist 15 currently, so I'd like to know with no 16 increase in EMS's budget I want to know how 17 they're going to exist in the future. 18 There are no routine patrols by the 19 Tompkins County Sheriff's Department or the 20 Ithaca Police Department or the New York 21 State Police on Route 96. We can't 22 actually get anyone out there from the 23 sheriff's department to enforce the speed 24 limit on Route 96 which is why everyone 87 1 knows that they can speed on Route 96 as 2 they do all hours of the day and not get 3 caught. So now we're going to add two new 4 roads dumping out onto Route 96. 5 There are a number of misleading 6 statements and I think really dangerous 7 assumptions in this DEIS and I encourage 8 you to read the whole thing. I actually 9 have, crazy as I am, a few things I really 10 would like to know since there is so much 11 talk about traffic and this project is not 12 supposed to add significant traffic. 13 Let's talk about jobs. How many jobs 14 are going to be given to Ithaca residents, 15 not Ithaca area as it's stated because we 16 all know with developments in Ithaca, the 17 Ithaca area often means Elmira, Binghamton 18 or Syracuse. If we are not adding 19 additional, significant additional trips on 20 this road, how about the construction 21 workers. Will they be from Ithaca? 22 Interesting enough if you dig deep 23 enough into Appendix D, in particular the 24 project completion date appears to be 2020. • • Mej 1 You're really going to subject us to 10 2 years of this development? That's 3 astounding to me. If any of us can sell 4 our homes, we won't be there obviously. 5 There is some information on the 6 plantings. In.some spots there's more of a 7 green buffer between the existing 8 properties and the new property, the new 9 homes that will be built. It's not 10 consistent throughout the project border. 11 We in particular appear to be in line to 12 get a row of fir trees, hedges and 13 deciduous trees which we know around here 14 will be without foliage six months of the 15 year. Doesn't provide much of a buffer. 16 And I am - particularly concerned about the 17 noise buffer. Since the mature trunk line 18 was put in behind our property, that has 19 actually contributed to deforestation. No 20 one seems to want to admit there was more 21 than just brush there before that project 22 came through, but we can now hear the bands 23 of the Boat Yard Grill. For instance we 24 are a significant distance away. We never .. 1 used to be able to hear that. The 2 1 conservation zone is a buffer for people on 3 Route 89, however, it is no buffer at all 4 for us living on 96. 5 Again with respect to construction, I 6 have a particular concern especially with 7 our population on this stretch of road on 8 96 which includes a number of institutions 9 for the elderly and the unwell. We are 10 going to be faced with construction until 11 2020, six days a week. I think that we 12 should be afforded at least the same 13 concessions as the residents around the IC 14 athletic events center which was five days 15 a week and an occasional Saturday. 16 However, we also have the Seventh Day 17 Adventist Church in the middle of this 18 property development. Their day of worship 19 is Saturday. I would ask you for no 20 construction on Saturday and given the 21 population.on this stretch of road out of 22 concern for their well -being is that you 23 severely restrict the hours not 7 a.m. to 7 24 p.m., but more normal business hours 8 a.m. all 1 to 5 p.m. It might leave the rest of us 2 with a little bit of our sanity if it goes 3 on to 2020. I doubt that. 4 Again all I can ask you is to take 5 these concerns into consideration. It's 6 not about convenience. It's not about not 7 wanting to look at roof lines. We're 8 deal -ing with a public safety issue, quality 9 of life. It's already untenable on this 10 stretch of road. You're going to 11 exacerbate it. Be prepared with the issues 12 that will come from that because 13 unfortunately the sheriff's department 14 probably will. They will be dealing with 15 increased noise complaints. All sorts of 16 things. This is not a good idea. Just 17 because the developer owns this tract of 18 land and wants to profit from it does not 19 mean you need to green light this project. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. KANTER: Any questions? Thank 22 you. 23 MR. WILCOX: Public speaking skills 24 are to be commended. 91 1 MR. KANTER: We will first go to 2 people who haven't had a chance to speak. 3 MS. FRIEDRICH: Hi. My name is 4 1 1 Kathleen Friedrich and I live at 1201 5 Trumansburg Road which is directly across 6 from Bundy Road intersection and 96 and I 7 would like to thank Alaina for her comments 8 and I agree wholeheartedly with the 9 situation that she describes. And that's 10 something that I found very lacking in the 11 DEIS, which is a concern for the residents 12 who are living there and have been living 13 there for many years. So I don't want to 14 go through all of the details that Alaina 15 did, but let me just read a letter that I 16 wrote about some experiences I've had. 17 As a writer of this letter there are 18 some lines in the middle of Trumansburg 19 Road outside of my house. They intend to 20 divide EMS workers from Cayuga Medical 21 Center. My front lawn is littered with 22 1 broken glass and debris from yet another 23 collision occurring here at the 24 1 1 intersection. How many more people will be 92 1 injured or.killed before something is done 2 about the situation here? How much more 3 property damage, how many more mailboxes 4 have to be replaced. I have replaced mine 5 three times and repaired it over and over 6 again. I don't know how many times. 7 Since the octopus improvements and 8 subsequent development on Bundy Road I've 9 been forced at considerable expense to add 10 a back entrance to my home in order to 11 avoid using the front because it's become 12 so dangerous. It's a dangerous prospect 13 just to retrieve my mail and I can't begin 14 to tell you how difficult it is to enter or 15 exit my driveway. Not 50 seconds. It took 16 us longer than that to leave this evening 17 for the meeting at, after 7 p.m. The 18 figures quoted about this in the statement 19 I think are very misleading, if not 20 outright misrepresentations. Fifty seconds 21 is not the worst case scenario for trying 22 to turn left. And I don't see how it's 23 1 going to improve by adding I guess it's 676 24 more daily trips from Holochuck. 93 1 So let's get back to the letter. But 2 I know that some of the accidents I've seen 3 as Alaina mentioned are not documented at 4 all. They're hit and runs. Some have been 5 documented and will be on record. And I 6 think there are some, two major reasons 7 behind this problem and it.'s an ongoing 8 problem. The traffic pattern is inadequate 9 to deal with increased development along 10 Bundy Road. There is no turn lanes or 11 other features to facilitate turns from 12 Trumansburg Road. Consequently northbound 13 traffic, rather than wait for cars to clear 14 the intersection, pass on the shoulders 15 and sometimes through my front yard. They 16 seldom even slow down to make this 17 maneuver. And this behavior is shared by 18 those driving trucks and TCAT buses. My 19 driveway, being directly across from Bundy 20 Road, because of this I've had more than a 21 few very close calls because the driver in 22 front of me was turning up Bundy Road and 23 would try to enter my driveway and the 24 driver seems to think they can go in M 1 between. And as mentioned this traffic 2 driver behavior is not policed well. So 3 the excessive speed of the motorist isn't 4 being addressed. Vehicles of every type 5 barrel through here recklessly and 6 impatiently and this has been a residential 7 area for some time. The speed limit I 8 think needs to be lowered. But be that as 9 it may there is absolutely no excuse for 10 not enforcing the current speed limit. 11 But in effort to call attention to 12 the situation, I have spoken to a number of 13 officials and representatives and agencies 14 whose responsibility includes dealing with 15 such problems. Among other things I was 16 told a study couldn't be done. I was told 17 no passing signs could be posted. I was 18 told a study had been done to show there 19 was not enough traffic to merit doing 20 anything. One official, I won't name, 21 suggested that I stand in front of my house 22 several hours every day for a week catching 23 violations of the law on videotape. But he 24 didn't say how I might do this when I have 95 1 a ten hour work day. But if I did so, 2 1 maybe something else could be done. And I 3 1 lurge you to consider this situation, take 4 measures before the next accident happens 5 here. And there's no doubt in my mind that 6 such incidents will continue to occur on a 7 regular and at a more frequent basis. 8 The thing about this letter also is 9 that I wrote this in July of 2001. And 10 believe me the traffic situation has not 11 improved since then. It's gotten much 12 worse and much more dangerous. It's not 13 just congestion. As Alaina did say it is .a 14 real safety problem and we live with it on 15 a daily basis. It's very unclear to me how 16 adding the kind of developments that are 17 being suggested can be supported. I simply 18 don't see it. 19 I did understand from a recent 20 planning board meeting that local residents 21 would be contacted about the impact of the 22 Holochuck development on their view shed. 23 This is another point, but I haven't heard 24 anything from them. And with all the M 1 serious concerns, I don't see how the basis 2 of this are going to be handled with 3 construction that's going to last for so 4 many years. Are we going to have to look 5 at a construction site for that many years? 6 Comments were made in other planning 7 meetings that the animals, we talked about 8 the problem with the habitat of the animals 9 that are currently there. That the animals 10 would get the idea eventually that they 11 won't be able to live there. I take those 12 comments and I look at all of the for sale 13 signs that are going up in this section of 14 residential area. And I think, well, who 15 is going to find out quicker, the people 16 that are living there or the animals that 17 are going to be, that lose their habitat. 18 Thanks for your time. I am very 19 concerned and I think a lot of thought has 20 to go into this. And I think part of that 21 thought should go towards a moratorium on 22 pushing this forward as quickly as it seems 23 to want to go. 24 MR. KANTER: Any questions? Thank 97 1 you very much. 2 MS. FRIEDRICH: Oh, if I didn't make 3 the point in saying that this letter, 4 giving you, telling you about this letter 5 from so long ago, the point also deals on 6 the fact that so many people mentioned that 7 the development is being made irrespective 8 of other developments. That's the 9 incremental aspects of it are not being 10 addressed. None of the developments that 11 are across from the hospital were in 12 existence when these accidents I spoke of 13 were happening, but they are still 14 happening. Thank you. 15 MR. WALKER: I'm Ken Walker. I live 16 at 257 Ira Dell Road. Kathy, who just 17 spoke, is my life partner and we've been 18 following the process for this development 19 for a couple of years. And I have a couple 20 of, I have a big picture comment about it 21 and, you know, it just seems really obvious 22 to me after following this for so long that 23 planning for this really ought to be done 24 with more cooperation of the other M. 1 municipalities involved and it would be so 2 much more effective and cogent if the town 3 and county and even the other towns like 4 Ulysses and Enfield could be enlisted as 5 part of this process because we're all 6 affected in this. It's all part of, we all 7 use Route 96 corridor. We are all going to 8 have to live with the results. 9 And my other big picture comment is 10 about this development as being part of a 11 nodal development. And I just really don't 12 see that as applying to this. If the town 13 is considering three areas of nodal 14 development, the other two being the East 15 Hill Plaza area and the King Road Route 96B 16 intersection, those at least have 17 commercial development and increasing 18 commercial development and there's just 19 none of that in this area. And I just see 20 no justification for referring to this as 21 nodal when it just doesn't seem to fit that 22 definition. There is no, no existing 23 commercial activity. There is no 24 neighborhood feeling to it at all and I Wire rim 1 just think it's a mistake. 2 I have a bunch of comments about the 3 traffic. A bunch has already been said 4 about the trip generation and the figure 5 that was in the DEIS was that this 6 development would add 676 daily trips and I 7 think that's probably a considerable 8 underestimate. If you think that the trip 9 generation is going to include not only 10 people commuting to work, but the school 11 buses and the UPS truck and people going to 12 to the homes to do plumbing work or 13 whatever workmen people have in their 14 homes, it just seems likely to be quite a 15 bit higher than that especially if you 16 consider that these are upscale houses, 17 townhouses if you want to call them. And 18 the expectation that everybody ought to 19 have, there will be probably two cars for 20 every new development. 21 Also in the section about 22 neighborhood livability and I'm going to 23 comment about the driveway thing again. 24 Everybody else has spoken about that, but 100 1 1 it's ridiculous. Somebody said earlier you 2 1 can sit in your driveway now for five to 3 seven minutes waiting for a break in 4 traffic to get out and they are telling us 5 that the maximum is going to be 55 seconds. 6 And to support that they say that they went 7 out there on one Tuesday on a clear day 8 when there wasn't rain, there wasn't snow, 9 there wasn't, you know, weekend issues and 10 they did one time, one day in the morning 11 and that was their study. It's not a 12 study. It's a snapshot or anecdote, but it 13 doesn't say anything about the reality of 14 the situation. And, you know, anybody who 15 lives along there will tell you that 16 getting in and out of your driveway right 17 now as it is are plenty bad enough. And we 18 really don't need to add anything more to 19 that. 20 And finally, I think it was the last 21 public meeting about this, I heard you say, 22 John Bosak, talking about the parkway idea 23 that was proposed back in 192 and I looked 24 into this and I think you could debate the 101 1 1 1 merits of it a little bit and I think it 2 1 might be distasteful to many people to put 3 a parkway through what is designated now as 4 a conservation zone and it might be 5 politically impossible to do now. But if 6 you build this development as it's proposed 7 to do, you're going to make this impossible 8 to ever do. There will be no possibility 9 of ever mitigating traffic on West Hill by 10 taking the alternate route up the hill. So 11 I would urge you to at least keep that in 12 mind and do not give the land to the state. 13 Once it's in the state's hand, it will take 14 an act of the state legislature to get it 15 back and we can all imagine what that will 16 be like. 17 So I don't know. I guess that's it. 18 I think the parkway idea has a lot of 19 merits to it. I think it would be tough to 20 get it built in this community, but some 21 day I think it's going to be needed. 22 MR. KANTER: Any questions? Is there 23 anyone else here who has not had a chance 24 1 1 to speak who would like to? 102 1 MR. GOODELL: My name is Andy 2 Goodell. I.live at 1249 Trumansburg Road 3 which is the building that is the seven 4 unit apartment building that is part of, 5 all of the buildings with the School of 6 Massage and the PRI there, part of that. I 7 can tell you from experience the driveway 8 that's there, it's already so steep that 9 anyone who says it takes five to ten 10 minutesnsto.get out of the driveway takes me 11 about double that because the visibility is 12 so poor because you're looking up at an 13 angle to look left to make a turn in that 14 way. It's extremely difficult to make that 15 sort of turn. To expect 600 cars to be 16 able to or 600 trips, roughly maybe 500 if 17 you count the other gentleman's figure of 18 maybe 80 trips that would be done, 80 19 percent of the trips turning left, that 20 entrance would be a mess. It would either 21 not be used and everyone would be going out 22 the other entrance and making that a mess 23 also or people would just be in a queue 24 which there is no signal. The problem is 103 1 if you do put a signal in, you are slowing 2 down thousands of other trips going up and 3' down the hill. It's a major issue either 4 way whether you want to signalize that 5 intersection or not. 6 I also have to agree with the 7 comments from the environmental review 8 committee with the conservation board. I'm 9 also on the town's conservation board, so I 10 do agree with all the comments that Tony 11 Ingraham said today, also. I think that's 12 all I have to add to this. 13 MR. KANTER: Thank you. I know there 14 is somebody else who wants to speak a 15 second time, but is there anyone else who 16 hasn't had a chance to speak? Tony. 17 MR. INGRAHAM: Tony Ingraham again. 18 This time I'm speaking as a resident of the 19 Town of Ithaca and former employee of the 20 hospital. I worked at what was then 21 Tompkins County Hospital in 1974 and 1975 22 as an orderly and to see if I was 23 interested in some kind of medical career 24 which turned out not to be. But I think it 104 1 was the first or the second day I was 2 there, one of the responsibilities of 3 orderlies at the hospital is to help out in 4 the morgue, that is coming and help move 5 bodies from either the slab, either from 6 the drawer onto the slab or after the 7 autopsy's been done to put them back in the 8 drawer. So I, it was like my first or 9 second day. I never seen anything like 10 this before. I haven't been to Vietnam and 11 I went in there and on the slab just 12 finished with the autopsy was a 14- year -old 13 boy who had been killed on Cliff Street. 14 And I will never forget the look in that 15 dead boy's eyes. This is a really human, 16 blood and guts issue that people are 17 talking about tonight with the safety on 18 that road. And I have to totally concur 19 about if we are not going to look at the 20 bigger picture of how to control traffic 21 and make it safer there, then you're 22 irresponsible to add anything to it. 23 Stepping, that was a segue into a 24 comment about SEQRA law which is it's my 105 1 understanding of the SEQRA law is that when 2 someone comes to do a development, they 3 can't segment the process. That is they 4 can't say well, we'll just put this here 5 and we don't plan anything else. And then 6 they come back a couple years later well, 7 what they're really planning is a much 8 larger development. That's clearly 9 illegal. Well, if we step outside of the 10 SEQRA box and think about what is happening 11 unconsciously in terms of planning of all 12 these different developments and so forth 13 that are going on we have the same 14 situation which is forbidden within the 15 SEQRA box. But I just want to add my 16 weight to the, to all those comments about 17 the cumulative impacts and the lack of 18 comprehensive plans. When we get the Town 19 of Ithaca comprehensive plan done. We need 20 to get the Route 96 corridor study done. 21 We need to do this traffic study that 22 funding is supposedly available for. Thank 23 you. 24 MR. KANTER: Is there anyone else who 106 1 1 1 would like to speak? So we've heard a lot 2 1 1 of things that underscore concerns that we 3 1 1 knew about and some things that were 4 highlighted not quite the way that others 5 thought. We have to make some decisions 6 about whether we keep the public hearing 7 open until the January 5th meeting. 8 Remember written comments are accepted 9 through January 5th. So I don't, do you 10 have any advice on that decision? 11 MR. WELLS: The SEQRA guidelines 12 requires that we keep commentary open after 13 the close of this hearing, so I thought the 14 purpose of having January 5th as the end of 15 the comments would allow you to close the 16 hearing tonight and still receive comments 17 until the next meeting. 18 MS. BROCK: That's right. I think 19 the staff memo had suggested it. 20 MR. KANTER: If we didn't get 21 through. 22 MS. BROCK: If not everybody had 23 opportunity to speak tonight would like.to 24 consider keeping the hearing open. 107 1 Everybody who has come and wanted to speak 2 has been able to do so. 3 MR. KANTER: So does anyone else want 4 to speak? If not, I'll close the public 5 hearing at 9:23. 6 7 8 9 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 10 11 I hereby certify that the proceedings and 12 evidence are contained fully and accurately in the 13 notes taken by me on the above cause and that this 14 is a correct transcript of the same to the best of 15 my ability. 16 17 18 19 DELORES HAUBER 20 21 22 23 24 ip T uj"1�7 Holochuck DEIS Dec. 15, 2009 135 Westhaven Rd, Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Thank you for giving me this opportunity to make some public comments. I appreciate all the work that you do. I have some general comments. I. Completion Bond There is no mention made of a Completion Bond; thus, if the project stops mid- stride, or if Holochuck Homeowners file for bankruptcy because of the worsening economy, who � "4& responsible for thi3.partially -built development? Holochuck Homes, apparently, if I am reading the DEIS correctly, says that the non - existent Holochuck Home Owners Association is responsible. Will this responsibility ultimately rest on the Town's shoulders? II. Track Record and reputation of HH. I have found no information on Holochuck Homes. What other developments have they built? Where? What other government agencies have they worked with? III. SLwage. There is an existing sewage problem on the West Hill. Apparently the Town is at Na*-,%- capacity and what happens is when there is overflow, sewage empties directly into the Inlet or the Lake. Has there been any monitoring of the sewage at the point where it enters the Inlet and Cayuga Lake? HH proposes to hold its sewage. How is it going to hold its sewage? In open ponds? For how long? What happens during ow periods of torrential rainfall*? IV. Errodable soils. How does HH propose to deal with errodable soils? V. There needs to be a "livability study' done, and it cannot be done without input from West Hill residents. Livability in Ithaca is not the same as livabilitv in Rochester. VI. What is impact on the viewshed? What studies have been done? VII. These other comments are based on the Holochuck Homes DEIS, section 3.6 Traffic and Transportation. 1. P. 1 : mention is made of the 2007 NYS Traffic Data Viewer which gives average annual daily traffic of 8,845 vehicles; city section 19,720 vehicles —l. this data is nearly 3 years old; 2. where does this data come from? 3. How were these vehicles counted? 2. p. 3 peak traffic volumes measured on one.day: a Tuesday in April 2008— that's all. ih S u Vq4k 3. p4 -5: Study reports that the intersection of Rt 96 and N. Flulton St. operates at a service level of C or better. I suggest posting, at the developer's expense, an individual with a clipboard at the intersections of Rt 96 and Fulton St and 96 and No. Meadow Street to ask those in vehicles how they would rate the "level of ATTACHMENT 2 PB Meeting 12 -15 -2009 P . 4. , p. ca 5: T e H T P 4 cl or n 6. The biki disc 7. Hol ice." Not just for one day, but several days, and at; times lien +trains are, dng through the West End: Existing Public transportation: there is no mention made,of what percentage to West Hill residents use public. transportation; and while it is mentioned that �T serves all. of the; Town, I recall plotting out my route from the West Hill to re.I worked- just beyond the. airport-- and concluded that if I was lucky; I .d complete a bus commute in just under 2 hours:- major employers; with the exception of CMC which has asserted ieno longer ending, are located either in the City or other parts of the town; thus, most 3chcuk Home, workers; would certainly be contributing to cross -town traffic. s,:unWss this study delineates how the 200 -plus Holochuck vehicles - -or: 600= . Holochuck Total Daily Trips -- contribute to the existing gridlock (every day; a to 6 pm as southward bound RT 13 traffic enters the West End), then the ent study is incomplete.: I would also like to see someone with a clipboard protective breathing apparatus asking commuters. if the" level of service" is C use to for a +l 8. I seer peno1c neigh] 9.. The ti It doe have j I am askii of what is significan justified t Plan: this Before co Hill resid the cumu foresight our -green that reside Sincerely Pat Dutt , .k`of'shoulders and sidewalks in the Town part of Rt 96 makes walking and extremely treacherous. ' Additional traffic on. this road will only further rage people fro walking, biking and taking the bus.. ick Homes projects an extra 21 TCAT riders from it's population of 307 s, however, HH is a high -end development, and its residents are likely to .ir own vehicle rather than wait for a half hour in the rain, snow and cold us to come. o compensation to the Town for wear- and -tear on the road during the time. when trucks used in constructing the 106"uM VIYbe degrading our, ,orhood roads... iffic study fails to take into account cumulative effect of all developments. not mention the impact on traffic due to snow and construction. —which we alf of the year, and trains —which we have every day. :►Q_, 0,.-V _ ✓ Cca �_,. ✓t� C -ew ✓�� l; Q K6,A be off g. The Board, as others have, o please step back and take a big- picture view happening on the West Hill. Project by project,. bit by bit, developers have 1y altered what was once beautiful about the West Hill. And the Town has iese ungainly developments by citing an outdated 1993 Comprehensive ' I fails miserably in protecting existing West Hill neighborhoods. pounding our problems, please address the current problems: the lack of the fire safety issues, the burgeoning traffic — issues that other West is have spoken of publically. There has been no formal consideration of ive impact of developments on the West Hill, and this fundamental lack of putting the West Hill on the fast track for linear sprawl We are, losing ace, our vfe*§-O-f views-O- the ldk& an e _ s our peace an - quiet, an every mg is love about the West Hill. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, December 15, 2009 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2- 41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Thi§ public hearing is also to consider public comments regarding Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY, and on the Town of Ithaca website: www.town.ithaca.n,L. Written comments on the DEIS will also be accepted through January 5, 2010, and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, at Town Hall at the address indicated above. 3. Approval of Minutes: November 3, 2009 and December 1, 2009. 4. Other 5. Adioumment. 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 HEARING Tuesday, December 15, 2009 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and Chapter 148 of Ithe Town of Ithaca Code, will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, at 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time on the following matters: 7:15 P.M. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider public comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2- 411.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. This public hearing is also to consider public comments regarding Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca,INY, at the Tompkins County Public Library, 101 E. Green Street, Ithaca, NY, and on the Town of Ithaca website: www.town.ithaca.ny.us. Written comments on the DEIS will also be accepted through January 5, 2010, and may be addressed to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, at Town Hall at the address indicated above. Said Planning Board will at said time 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: November 24, 2009 Publish: November 30,20C Monday, NoviaMier'3Q, °gQOT: J�THEITTHACNJOURN I By dlreci as, ing� time. on . thd�. fqllq4nd� matte rs 38,� " Dens Mirdi tial,_2 tion invok of 10 with side of of Planning. at Town Hall � eat to NY%R­�G�-­' Two W atJ the adicindas'.1 i6dat6il .'.Low and Y' zoned Low, �a�n;cifLAjd' above: Reikientiai th Qn, than fiigi_ . Board S ' a id�1?16fihln viial =55. portion;- of 0 saldltims'an& said place hear'61i persons in' support mainly ZaIIIII so non,. remaMing of such matters 'or objLc. 'Perso'ns oped. The lions, theinato,1. � -or Slats f a W may appear by agent in Recreation; , t person. Individuals vAtW Preservation propope 'to Visual impairments,• hearr '6r acquire.IrnCat of We' ast, ing imbi�nenis other j)needb,'VVjjj'�'bsr. special, pro" am portion'of the pro' pe in coniunctioin Wt evel: wul! videld; with assistance' as opmeMs of: the necessary, upon.-requerst Black Person% desiring ,; asses -' tance must -make such�'6 'Shan Tis'pu n4 is also" �equist, , not' less i8 to consider oubIc en r'" hours prof to thetlme,of nary ._Su�ia for h4' Jonath6n'Kanter, AICP?'. Holochuck'Homes SubdiN Dlrector,cf Planning vision. HO'lochuck Hom&d�'! 273 = 1747 LLC" Owner /Applicant ,DDavid _Mk PDate Es Ageqt: Ncverrrberr, 1.1/30/2009 Name Gtr-- l7 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street December 15, 2009 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You t LA-5A cN o Vk \A4VV1 %Gi116_ Address �L 2 pvtavq 'to Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street December 15, 2009 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Address I c 2-S7 _-_.,�__ TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce,lbeing 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, December 15, 2009 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: � November 24, 2009 Date of Publication: � November 30, 2009 STATE OF NEW Y COUNTY OF TOM Sworn to and subscribed J", -�- SS: IS) q Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca me this 9`h day of December 2009. Notary Public) CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 ��