Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2011-02-01I FILE DATE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, February 1, 2011 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, chair; John Beach; Jon Bosak; Linda Collins; Hollis Erb; David Slofitje, Alternate Member Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Debra DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and accepted the posting of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Desch / May 2 -Lot Subdivision, Coddington and Updike Roads Noel Desch and Montgomery May were present to answer questions. They and their wives have been joint owners of the property for over 30 years, and would like to do away with the partnership, at this time so their heirs don't have to sort through it. PB RESOLUTION No. 2011 -010: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Desch / May 2 -Lot Subdivision, Coddington and Updike Roads, Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by David Slottje WHEREAS': This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located off Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1- 15.2, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 79.6, +/- acre property into two parcels, one 45.5 +/- acre vacant parcel with access to Coddington Road and one 34.1 +/- acre vacant parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -14 (132 Updike Road). Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on February 1, 2011, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Map of Survey — Parcels of Land Being Conveyed Between Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May ", dated October 20, 2010, prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., L. S., and other application materials, and j PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 2 of 16 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part . II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb Nays: None Absent: Conneman, Baer AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located off Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing' the 79.6 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 45.5 +/- acre vacant parcel with access to Coddington Road and one 34.1 +/- acre vacant parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -14 (132 Updike Road). Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May, Owners /Applicants. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. PB RESOLUTION No 2011 -011: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Desch / May 2- Lot Subdivision, Coddington and Updike Roads, Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located off Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1- 15.2, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 79.6, +/- acre property into two parcels, one 45.5 +/- acre vacant parcel with access to Coddington Road and one 34.1 +/- acre vacant parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -14 (132 Updike Road). Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on February 1, 2011, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on February 1, 2011, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 3 of 16 the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Map of Survey — Parcels of Land Being Conveyed Between Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May ", dated October 20, 2010, prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., L. S., and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coddington and Updike Roads, as shown on the survey, map titled "Map of Survey — Parcels of Land Being Conveyed Between Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May ", dated October 20, 2010, prepared by Robert S. Rus'sler Jr., L.S., subject to the following conditions: a. revision of the subdivision plat to include the Surveyor's Certificate (a certificate signed and sealed by a registered land surveyor to the effect that (1) the plat represents a survey made by him, (2) the plat is a correct representation of all exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and the subdivision of it, (3) all monuments indicated on the plat actually exist and their location, size and material are correctly shown, and (4) the requirements of these regulations and New York State laws relating to subdividing and surveying have been complied with), prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and b. revision of the subdivision plat to include a note regarding Parcel A referencing the Zoning Board of Appeal's conditions from its February 12, 1992 resolution, and c. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the modified final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and d. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 34.10 +/- acre parcel (Parcel "B ") with, Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -14, and evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb Nays: None Absent: Conneman, Baer AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: College Crossing 2 -Lot Subdivision, Northeast Corner of Danby Road and King Road East. Larry Fabbroni and Evan Monkmeyer were present. In order to finance the project, Mr. Monkmeyer -needs to split the corner (building lot) off from the rest of the property, which they plan to do along the zoning line. PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 4 of 16 PB RESOLUTION No 2011 -012: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, College Crossings 2 -Lot Subdivision, Corner of Danby Road & King Road East, Tax Parcel No. 43.- 1 -3.22 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by David Slottje WHEREAS: This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision of the College Crossings LLC property located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.- 1 -3.22; Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 32 acre property into two parcels, one +/- 27.9 acre vacant parcel, and one +/- 3.75 acre parcel that will contain the College Crossings commercial development. College Crossings, LLC & Evan Monkmeyer, Owner /Applicant; and 2. This is, an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on February 1, 2011, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, College Crossings, Town of Ithaca, .County of Tompkins, State of New York" prepared by L. Fabbroni, dated 11 -16 -10 and revised, 12- 18 -10, and other application materials, and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance, for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb Nays: None Absent: Conneman, Baer AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -iot subdivision of the College Crossings, LLC property located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43. -1 -3.22, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 32 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 27.9 +/- acre vacant parcel and ',one 3.75 +/- acre parcel that will contain the College Crossings commercial development; that was approved by the Town Planning Board in September 2010. Evan Monkmeyer /College Crossings, LLC, Owner /Applicant. PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 5of16 Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Hearing no public comment, he closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. PB RESOLUTION No. 2011 -013: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, College, Crossings 2 -Lot Subdivision, Corner of Danby Road & King Road East Tax Parcel No. 41-1 -3.22 Moved by.Hollis Erb; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision of the College Crossings LLC property located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.- 1 -3.22; Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 32 acre property into two parcels, one +/- 27.9 acre vacant parcel, and one +/- 3.75 acre parcel that will contain the College Crossings commercial development. College Crossings, LLC & Evan Monkmeyer, Owner /Applicant; and 2. This is'an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on February 1, 2011, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on February 1, 2011 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, College Crossings, Town of Ithaca, .County of Tompkins, State of New York" prepared by L. Fabbroni, dated 11 -16 -10 and revised- 12- 18 -10, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, as shown on the survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat, College: Crossings, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York" prepared by L. Fabbroni, dated 11 -16 -10 and revised 12- 18 -10, subject to the following conditions: a. Obtaining any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, and b. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy, and three dark -lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and c. Submission for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town of an easement or other agreement necessary on Parcels "A" and "B" (indicated on the subdivision plat), to allow the construction and connection of the walkway for public use on the Circle Apartments PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 6 of 16 property, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the College Crossings commercial development project. A vote one the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb Nays: None Absent: Conneman, Baer AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility on Riley Robb Hall Roof, 111 Wing; Drive. Sara Dean from Cornell was present. Jared Lusk, Kathy Pomponia, and Greg Hanley from Verizon Wireless attended the meeting via conference call. Mr. Lusk introduced the project, which will improve the service in the Ag School area of the Cornell campus. They will need a variance because the antennas will increase the overall height of the building by 4 feet. Revised photos were provided at the meeting. The condenser units will be so far back on the roof that they will not be visible. Ms. Erb wondered how long it would take to remove the structures if they haven't been used for the intended purpose for 12 consecutive months. Sixty days was agreed on as an acceptable timetable for removal. Due to an: omission on the form, the applicant will provide satisfactory proof that they have the applicable FCC licenses necessary to operate. PB RESOLUTION No. 2011 -014: SEAR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Wireless Telecommunication Antennas on Riley Robb Hall, 111 Wing Drive, Tax Parcel No.'s 67. -1 -13.2 and 63. -1 -8.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by John Bosak WHEREAS: This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless telecommunication facility located on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, 11,1 Wing Drive, Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67. -1 -13.2 and 63:- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential zone. The proposal involves attaching fifteen panel antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, installing wireless telecommunication equipment within a +/- 160 square foot equipment room on the third floor of Riley Robb Hall, and placing an emergency back -up generator on the ground adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d /b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on February 1, 2011, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II and Visual Addendum, prepared by Town Planning staff; a report entitled "Application for the Necessary PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 7 of 16 Approvals to Construct a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on the Roof of Robb Riley Hall, Located at 111 Wing Drive on the Cornell University Campus in the Town of Ithaca, New York, prepared by Nixon Peabody LLP and dated December 27, 2010; plans entitled "Cornell Ag, Riley Robb" including sheet CC100, entitled "Partial Rooftop Survey & Site Survey," sheet CC110, entitled "Detailed Site & Roof Plan," sheets CC500 and CC501, containing elevation plans, construction details and notes, sheets SC500 and SC501, containing structural plan, details, notes, and room 414 equipment room information, sheets EC500- EC503, containing equipment room details, notes, and electrical specifications, and sheet HC500, containing HVAC details and notes, all prepared by Costitch Engineering, and dated 11/17/2010, revised photos showing visual impacts, provided to the Planning Board on February 1, 2011, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I and for the reasons set forth in the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part II & Visual Addendum referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb Absent: Conneman, Baer Nays: None AGENDA ITEM PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, located at 111 Wing Drive on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 15 panel antenna array on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, installing wireless telecommunications equipment within a 160 +/- square foot equipment room on the third floor of the building, and placing an emergency back -up generator on the ground adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d /b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. PB RESOLUTION No. 2011 -015: Preliminary & Permit, Wireless Telecommunication Antennas Parcel No.'s 67. -1 -13.2 and 61-1 -8.2 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS:' Final Site Plan Approval and Special on Riley Robb Hall, 111 Wing Drive, Tax PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 8 of 16 This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless telecommunication facility located on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, 111 Wing Drive, Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67. -1 -13.2 and 63.- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential zone. The proposal involves attaching fifteen panel antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, installing wireless telecommunication equipment within a +/- 160 square foot equipment room on the third floor of Riley Robb Hall, and placing an emergency back -up generator on the ground adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d /b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review with respect to the project has, on February 1, 2011, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II & Visual Addendum prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 1, 2011, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a report entitled "Application for the Necessary Approvals to Construct a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on the Roof of Robb Riley Hall, Located at 111 Wing Drive on the Cornell University Campus in the Town of Ithaca, New York," prepared by Nixon Peabody LLP and dated December 27, 2010; plans entitled "Cornell Ag, Riley Robb" including sheet CC100, entitled "Partial Rooftop Survey & Site Survey," sheet CC110, entitled "Detailed Site & Roof Plan," sheets CC500 and CC501, containing elevation plans, construction details and notes, sheets SC500 and SC501, containing structural plan, details, notes, and room 414 equipment room information, sheets EC500- EC503, containing equipment room details, notes, and electrical specifications, and sheet HC500, containing HVAC details and notes, all prepared by Costitch Engineering, and dated 11/17/2010; revised photos showing visual impacts, provided to the Planning Board on February 1, 2011; and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the co- location of telecommunications antennas on the roof of Riley Robb Hall and the placement of related telecommunications facilities, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, and further finding that the requirements of Section 270 - 219.0 have been met, specifically, the proposed telecommunications facility: 1. Is necessary to meet current or reasonably expected demands for services, as shown in applicant's Exhibit G; 2. Conforms with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules or regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, or any other federal agencies having jurisdiction, as shown by applicant's Exhibits K and L; 3. Is considered a public utility in the State of New York, based on New York case law; 4. Is sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which minimizes visual impact to the extent practical and adverse impacts upon migratory and other birds and other wildlife, because the antennas are only 15 feet tall and are being co- located on an existing building; 5. Complies with all other requirements of Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, unless expressly superseded therein, as demonstrated by the application materials, including the project drawings; and PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Wilcox noted that once the FEIS is accepted, the Planning Board has 30 days to make their Findings Statement. Mr. Slottje had questions regarding findings. Given that they are based on the FEIS, does that mean that by blessing the FEIS, the Board is accepting the conclusions in the document? If a Board member does not agree with something like traffic, does he or she raise it now or in the findings? Mr. Wilcox responded that if the Board doesn't agree with the FEIS, it needs to be stated in the record so'the applicant can respond by correcting statements or stating why they think they're correct. The Board may agree to accept the FEIS, but individual members may not agree with the findings that result from it. Ms. Erb asked which night is the night for "there are significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated." Ms. Brock said that the date is March 1 st. The findings have to be based on information in the EIS. The FEIS is the Planning Board's document, not the applicant's. So if the Board thinks there are statements in the FEIS that are incorrect, they need to address them now. Mr. Bosak. had a question regarding "on the record." He has been careful to make sure statements are in the record, sometimes in writing. One is bound in the document; some are in the minutes. He has assumed that the minutes are part of the record. Ms. Brock responded that the EIS (the DEIS, SEIS, and FEIS) needs to contain the information on which the Board bases their findings. Mr. Slottje wondered whether the Board is free to interpret the information contained in the EIS in their own way. For example, different people could interpret the conclusions in the level of service summary differently. The document states that the DOT finds LOS -D sufficient. Does that mean that Board members are not allowed to have the opinion that LOS -D is not sufficient? By blessing the FEIS, does that mean that when during the findings stage, Board members won't be able to object to an LOS -D? Mr. Slottje stated that he does not think this is an acceptable level for this neighborhood. His understanding of the law is that the Board has to have a reasonable and rational basis for their determination, but that it can include residents of the community. Ms. Brock responded that we know certain facts, we know what the levels of service are, and we know what various organizations consider to be acceptable. If DOT didn't base this information on the same information the Board has or if someone thinks there's a blatant error, then it needs to be corrected. Level of service is a term of art; it tells you how long it takes to get through an intersection. Mr. Parks stated that his understanding is that the applicant has the right to be judged by a particular standard and they should have the opportunity to include information based upon that standard. The only standard they have been given is the DOT standard. If there is another standard the ,Board wants them to use, they should have been provided with that standard. It's difficult for the applicant to respond to individual complaints about level of service, because everyone's experience may be different: what you find unacceptable sitting at an intersection for five minutes may be different from someone who lives on Long Island or somewhere where that level of service is acceptable. His understanding is that you have to judge by a uniform standard. PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Slottje agreed, adding that while there has to be a standard, that standard is that the Board has to act reasonably. The document says things like the train predated this project, so the document doesn't have to speak to it. Simply because a condition predated the project doesn't mean that it is somehow irrelevant. Mr. Parks' responded that it doesn't mean it's irrelevant; it's just a condition the applicant has no control over. Mr. Slottje commented that simply because the applicant has no control over it does not make it irrelevant to consideration by this Board. He also said that the applicant is entitled to a standard, but the question is, what standard? He does not agree that since the applicant used an industry standard, the Board should be stuck with it. Mr. Bosak stated that what he didn't understand from looking at SEQR and reading the law is that there are many areas like visual impacts that you cannot point to a standard. The only standard is the Board's judgment based on reasonable consideration. He does not see why traffic should be special by being bound to one particular methodology. Ms. Collins agreed that how someone perceives the LOS is affected by where one lives. Although one looks to a standard, the perception of that standard might be different. She agreed with Mr. Bosak that there are things within SEQR that are interpretable through the eyes of the community.; Mr. Parks reiterated that if the Town of Ithaca has adopted a community standard, the applicant should be judged by that standard, but no such standard exists. They are entitled to be judged by a particular standard. Mr. Bosak cited page 1 -5: "there are no identified transportation impacts ..." He would like the following inserted after that statement: "according to the methodology used." Mr. Wells and Mr. Parks agreed and thought this was already done. Mr. Bosak had been going on the assumption that things he asked to be entered into the record were entered into the record. If they were not, he requested a mechanism to enter them into the record. He's taking about all the minutes. He even gave a written statement, which is not in the FEIS. Ms. Brock was not sure if something needs to be stated in the EIS as opposed to the Planning Board's official record. Reading from SEQR, she stated that the Final EIS must include the draft and any supplements, copies of substantive comments received and their source, and the lead agency's responses to all substantive comments. The draft EIS may be incorporated by reference. The appendices include copies of the transcript of the public hearings, the letters and emails -- everything related to comments and responses to comments. Mr. Slottje wondered if the minutes relating to this topic can be incorporated by reference in the appendix. Mr. Bosak asked whether findings are limited to what's in the EIS or if they can also be based on something that was entered on some other sort of official record related to this discussion. Ms. Brock responded that the Board went through this document with the applicant a couple of times and members indicated that they were content with the responses that the applicant gave. If Board members had an issue with what was in the document, it should have been brought up by now. If the .Board had wanted to deviate from what has been done with every other project that has come before the Planning Board since 2006 when she became attorney for the Town, it PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 12 of 16 should have been indicated in the scoping document or when the DEIS first came out. She noted that the DOT's methodology and LOS analysis was used in the Transportation Focus Generic Environmental Impact Statement that this Board spent two years on, and which was accepted as what this Board would consider acceptable in terms of future projects. Mr. Slottje stated that the Board can probably all agree that it's useful to use DOT terminology to describe the issue or problem; it's a useful shorthand for people to understand what is meant by level of service D or F. His question is if DOT determines that level of service D is acceptable (or not unacceptable), does that mean Board members do not have the right to say they do not find level of service D to be acceptable for this part of town. And why, if the Board found a particular level of service to be acceptable or not unacceptable in a certain circumstance, they should be in a position to say that the same level of service is not appropriate in a different neighborhood. Ms. Brock took issue with the suggestion that it's okay for people on East Hill to wait two minutes, but not okay for people on West Hill, so the Board is not going to approve any more projects for West Hill. Mr. Slottje argued that the scope of this project generates too much traffic for its location given what West Hill looks like, given that there is a train, whether or not that had to do with this project. He expressed a desire as a planning board to do some planning so it doesn't keep getting worse. Mr. Wilcox agreed that the Board should plan, but stated that the Planning Board does not set policy. He also stated that he is not a traffic engineer, so he has to rely on experts. NYS DOT is an expert who the Board has to rely on in planning projects. He stated he would rely on traffic engineers hired by the Town, the applicant, or the DOT. Other Board members might come to different conclusions, but they need to have some basis in fact. Mr. Bosak responded that Mr. Wilcox's statement makes sense until it comes to other parts of SEQR. He's not an expert on aesthetics or the character of neighborhoods. Does that mean he has to bring in an expert? He stated that someone is waving a very complex computer program at the Board and saying, You don't understand. Ms. Erb commented that although there might be bugs in that methodology, the difference between this.and visual impact is that there are metrics that can be used on a few of the SEQR items like noise and traffic counts and waiting times. When there are well established metrics, she is inclined to go toward those metrics; her judgment comes more into play when there are no established metrics. Ms. Erb is reasonably content to use DOT's metrics and interpretations. Mr. Slottje said he is trying to understand how the process works. On the issue of relying on professionals, he agreed that the Board needs to do that, while being very skeptical. He has no problem with the level of service designation as a metric; that's DOT saying how many feet there are in a mile. What he has a problem with is allowing DOT to determine what an acceptable level of service is. The real question he had about interpreting this is if you compare the existing level of service to the build level of service (not comparing no -build to build), then even using the DOT framework, it gets worse. Ms. Erb argued that this is an incorrect comparison because the evidence is that there will be growth, so comparing the Holochuck buildout to the existing condition is incorrect. PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 13 of 16 Mr. Slottje had a problem with the assumption that there is one level of service D — that all levels of D are as bad as all other levels of D, etc. It doesn't matter that this will make it worse. He didn't think the Board should just ignore that. Mr. Parks responded that Town of Ithaca implemented their zoning laws in their comprehensive plan. They already decided, to a certain extent, what density would go where. They decided that denser projects are better and wanted to avoid urban sprawl. The issue of how much impact the Holochucks are going to put forth is the issue before the board. The issues of overall traffic have partially already been decided with zoning and partially have to be resolved when the Town implements the recommendations to Route 96 Corridor Study. When that is implemented, a lot of these macro issues will be resolved. Mr. Slottje wondered why the applicant said they need approval in year one for 106 units to make the project economically viable and on the other hand said there's a good chance, because of the economy, that it won't get built out for 10 years. Mr. Wilcox'Tesponded that the approval in year one is a subdivision approval so the applicant knows what he has to work with. Mr. Parks stated that the number of units is directly correlated with the cost of each unit. The more units they are able to build, the less expensive they will be. They have to front the entire infrastructure cost up front: the road, stormwater, underground utilities, etc. The Holochucks don't want to take ten years, but market conditions will dictate how long it will take to finish the project. They'll be bankrupt if they can't start selling houses. One page 1 -5, the board agreed to say, "according to the methodology used by the applicant there are no transportation impacts." This will have to be corrected in more than one location in the document. Mr. Bosak requested a correction to page 3.6 -1: Under the response, delete "another service provided by..." and replace it with "Gadabout, a non - profit organization provides door -to- door..." It was agreed that an extra meeting might be required in order to work through the Findings Statement. . Mr. Beach said that he shares Mr. Slottje's frustrations regarding the traffic study. If there were a different way, the applicant would have been told that by the Planning Board when this whole process started. Mr. Slottje stated that position, which he hopes to find support for: the fact that the applicant used the DOT standard, whether or not the Board encouraged it, does not mean that the Board can't interpret that standard on a local level. Ms. Collins made a caution regarding qualitative vs. quantitative data: numbers seem to have power; metrics are appealing because they appear on the surface to be facts and truth. As a researcher, she agrees they both have their place. Some things can be measured by numbers, but the Board has to look at how those numbers are generated. Ms. Brock's substantive comments are listed below: Page 2 -7: regarding noise, delete "except federal holidays and ..." PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 14 of 16 Page 2 -12, response 2 -39: delete "which would be approved prior to the phased construction plans." Also, any mention of the pathway on this and subsequent pages should refer to the driveway at PRI, not at CIVIC. Ms. Brock also commented on the 65 -acre parcel that will be conveyed to the State Parks. It is not always evident in the EIS that this is a sale and not a donation. She recommended making a finding that the conveyance must be a requirement — that any approvals must be conditioned on that transfer happening. Ms. Erb agreed that if it doesn't become the property of State Parks system, then it loses one of the counterbalancing benefits of the project. Public access to the Black Diamond Trail and getting the hillside out of private hands were cited as benefits of the land transfer. Mr. Parks responded that they expected it to be a condition of approval. Mr. Wilcox explained to new Board members that the Planning Board usually requires a subdivision to set aside 10 percent of the land for open space or parks. The PB has to make findings showing that it's necessary to set the land aside to provide for recreational activities either for the subdivision or possibly to add to other lands to provide a neighborhood park or community park. PB RESOLUTION No. 2011 -016: SEAR, Acceptance of Final Environmental Impact, Statement (FEIS), Holochuck Homes Subdivision, Between NYS Route 96 & NYS Route 89, 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 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: This is the consideration of Acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 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 project 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 will acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in'conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent; and 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on December 18, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act) for the above referenced action as proposed, and confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would be prepared; and 3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Meeting on March 18, 2008 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 15 of 16 content of the DEIS, and accepted the revised Final Scoping Document (amended by the Planning Board at its meeting on March 18, 2008), as being adequate; and 4. The applicants prepared the DEIS, dated September 1, 2009, and submitted said DEIS to the Town 'of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed the DEIS and amendments at its meetings on September 15, 2009 and October 6, 2009; and on November 3, 2009, accepted the DEIS as complete and adequate for the purpose of commencing public review, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and 6. The Town Planning Board scheduled a public hearing on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, and extended the public hearing and accepted written comments from the public regarding the DEIS until January 5, 2010; and 7. During the comment period, the Tompkins County Health Department informed the Town of Ithaca via letter dated November 17, 2009, that a former dump located on the Holochuck property was noted in the County Health Department's 1995 database of abandoned landfills as the "Oddfellow's Refuse Site "; and 8. The DEIS identified two 20th Century trash dumps visible on the surface of the property that was the subject of the DEIS, including a trash dump identified as Locus 1; and 9. On December 11, 2009 Town Staff visited the Holochuck Property, located the dump site identified by the Tompkins County Health Department, and determined that it was not the same asihe Locus 1 dumpsite indicated in the DEIS (although it may have been an extension of Locus '1), and further that it appeared to be located on the parcel proposed to be transferred to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation; and 10. The NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation submitted a letter to the Town of Ithaca, dated January 4, 2010, stating that a subsequent site visit by Town of Ithaca Staff and Finger Lakes Regional Staff on December 28, 2009 determined that there were potentially two dumpsites of significant size located on the portion of land shown to be conveyed to the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation and that further site assessment for hazardous materials, documentation of the full extent of the debris field, followed by a cleanup /closure as directed by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, would be necessary before the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation would agree to advance an acquisition of the property; and 11. The Planning Board determined that the newly discovered information about the various dumps on the Holochuck property was important and relevant and that there was a potential for significant adverse environmental impacts because of the potential public safety issues posed by these dumps located close to the proposed dense housing development. The dumps appeared to contain sharp, rusted metal, glass objects, medical refuse, and other unknown and potentially hazardous items. Locus 1 was located within the proposed developed area and another dump was located in the woods only a few hundred feet away from the proposed developed area. Additionally, there was not much known information about whether these dumps may have contained or currently contained hazardous waste; and 12. The Planning Board, on January 5, 2010, found that the DEIS inadequately addressed the impacts of the two dumps identified in the DEIS, and further that the DEIS did not address the PB 02 -01 -2011 Page 16 of 16 impacts of the dump(s) identified by the Tompkins County Health Department and observed by Town of Ithaca Staff, and therefore required the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the DEIS, to address the significant adverse impacts of the dumps; and 13. The applicants prepared an SEIS, dated July 27, 2010, concerning the two dumpsites referenced above, and the Planning Board, at its meeting of September 7, 2010, reviewed and accepted the SEIS as complete and adequate for the purpose of commencing public review, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and 14. The Planning Board held a public hearing at 7:05pm on October 5, 2010 to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the dumpsites located on the site of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, as evaluated in the SEIS, and accepted written comments by the public until October 15, 2010; and 15. The applicants prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), dated November 4, 2010, regarding the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, and submitted said FEIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed and revised said FEIS at its meetings on December 7, 2010, December 21, 2010, January 4, 2011, and February 1, 2011; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the FEIS, dated November 4, 2010 and revised on January 14, 2011, and February 1, 2011 for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision, as complete, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.9; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completion of the FEIS, as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, distributing the FEIS to involved and interested agencies, as may be necessary or appropriate. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Bosak, Slottje, Erb Nays: None Absent: Conneman, Baer Chris Balestra will draw up a draft Findings Statement for the Board to work from. Adjournment Upon motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C a DeA istine, Deputy o Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 1, 2011 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Desch / May 2 -Lot Subdivision, Coddington and Updike Roads. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located off Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 79.6 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 45.5 +/- acre vacant parcel with access to Coddington Road and one 34.1 +/- acre vacant parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -14 (132 Updike Road). Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May, Owners /Applicants. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: College Crossing 2 -Lot Subdivision, Northeast Corner of Danby Road and King Road East. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision of the College Crossings, LLC property located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43. -1 -3.22, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 32 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 27.9 +/- acre vacant parcel and one 3.75 +/- acre parcel that will contain the College Crossings commercial development that was approved by the Town Planning Board in September 2010. Evan Monkmeyer /College Crossings, LLC, Owner /Applicant. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility on Riley Robb Hall Roof, 111 Wing Drive. 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, located at 111 Wing Drive on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 15 panel antenna array on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, installing wireless telecommunications equipment within a 160 +/- square foot equipment room on the third floor of the building, and placing an emergency back -up generator on the ground adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Continuation of consideration of Acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 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 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, Februaa 1, 2011 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 1, 2011, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located off Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 79.6 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 45.5 +/- acre vacant parcel with access to Coddington Road and one 34.1 +/- acre vacant parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -14 (132 Updike Road). Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May, Owners /Applicants. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision of the College Crossings, LLC property located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43. -1 -3.22, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 32 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 27.9 +/- acre vacant parcel and one 3.75 +/- acre parcel that will contain the College Crossings commercial development that was approved by the Town Planning Board in September 2010. Evan Monkmeyer /College Crossings, LLC, Owner /Applicant. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, located at 111 Wing Drive on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 15 panel antenna array on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, installing wireless telecommunications equipment within a 160 +/- square foot equipment room on the third floor of the building, and placing an emergency back -up generator on the ground adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, January 24, 2011 Publish: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 Name Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street February 1, 20117:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You J Address oL TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Carrie Coates Whitmore, being duly sworn, say that I a Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT: PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, February 1, 2011 7:00 P.M. Date of Publication: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Date of Posting: Monday, January 24, 2011 STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 i Carrie Coates itmore Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of January, 2011 War y Public Debra OeAugistine Notary Public -State of New York No. 01DE6148035 Oualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 18, 20 �C m-0-1 -v- ;' .Stoll TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 1, 2011 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Desch / May 2 -Lot Subdivision, Coddington and Updike Roads. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located off Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -15.2, Low Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 79.6 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 45.5 +/- acre vacant parcel with access to Coddington Road and one 34.1 +/- acre vacant parcel which will be consolidated with Tax Parcel No. 46 -1 -14 (132 Updike Road). Noel & Janet G. Desch and Eleanor P. & Montgomery May, Owners /Applicants. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: College Crossing 2 -Lot Subdivision, Northeast Corner of Danby Road and King Road East. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision of the College Crossings, LLC property located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43. -1 -3.22, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing the 32 +/- acre property into two parcels, one 27.9 +/- acre vacant parcel and one 3.75 +/- acre parcel that will contain the College Crossings commercial development that was approved by the Town Planning Board in September 2010. Evan Monkmeyer /College Crossings, LLC, Owner /Applicant. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility on Riley Robb Hall Roof, 111 Wing Drive. 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, located at 111 Wing Drive on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 15 panel antenna array on the roof of Riley Robb Hall, installing wireless telecommunications equipment within a 160 +/- square foot equipment room on the third floor of the building, and placing an emergency back -up generator on the ground adjacent to the northeast corner of the building. Cornell University, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Continuation of consideration of Acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 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. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. 9. Approval of Minutes: January 4, 2011 and January 18, 2011. 10. Other Business: 11. Adjournment Susan Ritter 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.)