Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-09-02^ TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. September 2. 2014 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cayuga Trails development located on Harris B. Dates Drive near the intersection with Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.222, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves developing a 58-unit townhouse development on a portion of the 25.5 acre property. The proposal also includes a clubhouse, playground with half basketball court, community gardens, dog park, parking, stormwater facilities, and landscaping. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will also consider proposing to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions. Tompkins County, Owner; Better Housing for Tompkins County, Inc., Applicant; P. Christopher Dirr, Vice President - Development, NRP, Agent. 2. Persons to be heard 3. Approval of Minutes: August 5, 2014 _ 4. Other Business 5. 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.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, September 2, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach,Yvonne Fogarty, Paula Wedemeyer,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cayuga Trails development located on Harris B. Dates Drive near the intersection with Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.222, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves developing a 58-unit townhouse development on a portion of the 25.5 acre property. The proposal also includes a clubhouse, playground with half basketball court, community gardens, dog park, parking, stormwater facilities, and landscaping. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will also consider proposing to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions. Tompkins County, Owner; Better Housing for Tompkins County, Inc.,Applicant; P. Christopher Dirt,Vice President - Development, NRP,Agent Mr. Dirr said they have been retained by Better Housing for Tompkins County to pursue affordable housing in Tompkins County. He encouraged continued dialog with the community regarding this project. He was joined by Rick Cowan, Better Housing for Tompkins County, and Ben Gustafson, Hunt Engineers,Architects &Land Surveyors, PC (HUNT). Project History Mr. Dirr said there's a dramatic need for affordable housing in Tompkins County. NRP has been working with Better Housing for a couple years to try to address that need. This property was advertised through an RFP process by the county, and NRP responded with a proposal that was more dense; they later revised the proposal to bring the density down from what was originally proposed. The county legislature approved a contract for NRP to purchase the property. They have since terminated the agreement at the request of the county.At this point, they want to move through the Town of Ithaca SEQR and Planning Board process, and if successful, then reengage with the county to buy the property. Using the low-density residential zone requirements, they produced a subdivision plan consisting of 30 duplexes, or 60 units. This respects the setback requirements of the stream and the side, rear, and front yard setbacks. They have engaged a wetlands consultant to accurately depict the wetland area on the property. Even though that plan would be allowable under the zoning, it is not in keeping with the objectives of the county. They are more interested in a cluster development in order to utilize less of the land. The outcome of that is a 58-unit development on 6.5 acres. They have included things to engage the residents and contribute to the quality of life they're trying to achieve: a green area behind the clubhouse, a playground for younger kids, a half basketball court for the older kids, a number of areas for flower gardening and a community garden, and a dog park. Retention Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 2 of 25 areas are only representative on the drawings; this was done to acknowledge that they will comply with stormwater management practices. Those will be designed by HUNT. Project Funding This is a mixed-income project. It will be funded with tax credits that are allocated by the federal government, which NRP sells to investors. The investors put dollars into the project and this allows them to make the rents affordable to households making from 30% to 90%AMI, which is area median income. The AMI for a family of four in Tompkins County is $78,300. They rely on the income mix to substantiate the financing; it also reflects the natural mix that occurs in the communi- ty. There are 10 one-bedroom units (775 square feet), 16 two-bedroom units (965 square feet), 28 three-bedroom units (1200 square feet), and 4 four-bedroom units (1360 square feet). Market studies show that the demand is for 4000 units. This is a rent-to-own project. They're utilizing tax credits to keep the rents low while building a high-quality development. Because of that, the tax code requires that the units be maintained as rental units for 15 years: that's the regulatory compliance period.At the end of the 15 years, the units can be sold. It's their experience from other developments that the units are predominantly purchased by current residents. To encourage that, they grant a credit to residents for each year of occupancy, meaning that someone who lives in their unit from year 5 to year 15 is going to be able to purchase the unit more cost effectively than someone who moved in at year 12. That promotes long-term tenancy. For the first 15 years, the development is owned by a partnership comprised of the investors; the managing member of that entity is Better Housing.At the end of the 15 years, the non-for-profit partner will take 100% ownership and the units are free to be sold, first to the residents, and if they decline, to unassociated individuals. A benefit of that 15-year period is that the community has the benefit of knowing that Better Housing will be managing the development; they are required by the funding entities to provide significant operating and capital reserves for maintenance. There will be a tenant association involved in the management, and as they get into years 10 and 11, it will convert into a homeowners' association, so after the project transi- tions to homeownership, residents will know how to manage an HOA. Energy Efficiency The county in their RFP included this as a component to an EPA Climate Showcase Community, so NRP is integrating high-energy-efficiency components into the development. They situated the units to maximize potential solar gain instead of to take advantage of the topography. They have committed to the units being 50% more energy efficient than is required.Their objective is to hit 80%. Rick Cowan, Better Housing, said their goal was to keep a lot of green space on the property. Having the units closely packed together leaves a significant portion of the land open to green space and trails. They're using only 6.5 acres of the 23-acre site; over two-thirds will be left unaffected by the project. That was part of the process in order to meet some of the requirements of the RFP as well as to be supportive of green space and reduce the environmental impact on the land. Environmental Analysis of the Site Mr. Gustafson, HUNT, will coordinate the consultant team. The first thing they're looking at is to develop a base of information about the project site. For environmental studies, they hired a consult- ant called EDR to do a wetland delineation and habitat determination of the area of the site they're looking to impact. They focus on walking through the dense woods to identify the location of the wetland and any habitat of concerned species to get baseline information on the environmental and ecological condition of the site.Another component they will address immediately is archeological Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 3 of 25 sensitivity. The New York State Historic Preservation Office has an online mapping system that shows areas of potential sensitivity for archeological artifacts; the project is within one of those zones.An archeologist will evaluate the general history of the site (Phase 1A) and also perform a focused investigation of the proposed disturbance with actual shovel tests. Mr. Gustafson will look at infrastructure that's required for the site, primarily water and sewer: the availability of a water distribution system for potable water and fire access and a sewer treatment system to connect to. One of the major concerns they've heard from town staff and residents is traffic. They're preparing a detailed traffic impact study. They will study not only the impact from vehicles, but how to get access to buses, the pedestrian access, and bike access. Their traffic engineer will be present when they submit the report so board members can ask him questions. He said they would take into account the study done for the Holochuck project to the south and noted that the city had concerns about that study, including an issue with the type of software they used. HUNT uses the same traffic simulation software the city uses,which Mr. Gustafson demonstrated. The software allows viewers to see the individual cars move through the intersections. They build their model by having a person physically stand at the different intersections counting the cars and noting the direction they turn. The nice thing about using the same software as the city is that the city can give HUNT their model; HUNT can then add any intersections that weren't included and build a more accurate model. Using the data, the computer generates random traffic patterns and uses the traffic signal times to simulate how the cars move through the corridor.You can click on a vehicle to change its color, then track the vehicle through whole simulation for the existing condition and for the post-development condition. The intersections of real concern aren't proximate to the development, so HUNT will include intersections down in the city at the base of the hill. They will build the whole corridor, from Dubois to Fulton, at the two peak times. They will do actual traffic counts for existing conditions to create a baseline, then add the proposed development using the standard trip-generation numbers. They then calculate future conditions using a projected growth pattern. Ms. Brock explained the environmental review process for this project. The planning board will use the environmental assessment form to make a determination of significance. If they find the potential for an adverse environmental impact, they will give it a positive declaration, then go into the envi- ronmental impact statement process, which would include scoping. If, after reviewing the environ- mental assessment form, the board determines that there isn't a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, the they would do a negative declaration, and there would not be an environ- mental impact statement. Mr. Bosak said that this presentation doesn't constitute for him planning board approval of the methodology they will use for a traffic study. Mr. Gustafson said they will also be looking at soils. A geotechnical consultant is doing an initial soil investigation of the site.There are concerns on whether there's good infiltration, so they will do early geological testing to find out about the soil profile. Their intent is to provide the most detailed information so the board can evaluate impacts. Their advance stormwater prevention plan calcula- tions will primarily focus on the quantity controls to make sure they won't discharge more runoff from the site; they will also look at the green infrastructure calculations to make sure they have the means to meet the state and town requirements. Questions and Comments from the Board Ms. Erb asked what happens if a current renter does not buy the unit when it becomes available. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 4 of 25 Mr. Dirr responded that Better Housing will be the default owner of the unit. The purchase price at the end of the 15-year period is dictated by two things. The equity raised from investors pays 70% of the total development costs,which means there's outstanding debt that has to be covered. The second component is the market conditions at the time. Those two components will determine the average sales price. The renters who have lived there longer will get a larger price deduction than those who have lived there for less time. They commissioned a study by GAR Associates that looked at the capture rate: of all the potential renters, how many renters this development would have to capture to fill this project.As a rule of thumb, if you need to capture less than 20% of the total potential residents, then there's demand. This project has a capture rate of less than 5%.What that means is that they could do a project four times the size of this project and still not hit the 20% threshold. Ms. Erb asked Mr. Dirr for clarification on his statement about energy efficiency. Mr. Dirr responded that they have committed to making the project at least 50% more energy efficient than what the code currently requires. The engineers will create models based on what the current code requires for things such as how much insulation is required in the walls, ceiling, and roof, they combine those factors into an energy-efficient rating of X. In order to make a unit more energy-efficient, they make the building envelope more energy efficient, use energy-efficient lighting, and situate the building to utilize solar and better lighting. They will push it as far as they can while staying within budget to make them affordable. Ms. Erb asked whether the renters will pay utilities. Mr. Dirr responded that they project that the renters will pay their own gas and electric. The units will be metered separately for water and sewer, but the project will pay water and sewer. When they apply for funding, the funding entity doesn't have the capacity to process that the units will be energy efficient, so they have to use a higher utility allowance in estimating what the total rent should be. Ms. Erb asked that the modeling be given to the town engineers or to the planning board. Mr. Wilcox added that the board will want information on the model itself and, instead of tables upon tables, charts and graphs that result from the data. Information such as: If we do these addi- tional measures,what do we hope to achieve? Mr. Cowan said as part of the EPA Climate Showcase Community, there's going to be an ongoing study of this. This is not just their projections, but something that is monitored over the years in an effort to project out for other developers in the future. Mr. Bosak asked about the east-west orientation of buildings for passive heating and cooling. Mr. Dirr said they were attempting to achieve two things from a solar and energy-efficiency perspec- tive. The majority of the windows are on the front and rear of buildings for the greatest solar gain. With the roof elevations, they are trying to achieve the greatest surface area for solar panels. Since they want units to face each other to promote social engagement, they need the solar potential on both the fronts and backs of the units, which means different units may require a different design.A benefit of clustering the buildings and units in the buildings is that in one building, there are only Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 5 of 25 four sides exposed to the environment instead of having each unit with four sides exposed to the environment; it creates a sandwich effect. Mr. Bosak said that with regard to the solar gain, one of the early problems of passive solar design was maximizing solar gain during the winter and being stuck with a hot house during the summer. Usually the way to deal with that is an angled roof- a clerestory-type arrangement. Mr. Dirr said they have played with the eaves and the soffits. The challenge with the clerestory is that it exceeds the ceiling height of the design standards they are required to adhere to by the funding entity. Mr. Bosak pointed out that from Mr. Dirr's description, they are maximizing solar gain - period. That's wonderful during the winter and unlivable during the summer.A lot of early projects failed around that. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that it could be 15 years before solar panels are installed; he doubted whether renters were going to invest in solar panels. Mr. Erb hopes the site plan shows explicitly where the sidewalk is going to be that takes residents to the bus stop. She likes the permeable paving, community garden (which she will insist has deer fencing), dog park, playground, bike racks, and an office for the manager. She asked whether the office manager would live there. Mr. Dirr responded that he could, but it will not be required. There will be a full-time manager and a full-time maintenance person. They will be accessible 24/7, but living there is not a condition of employment. Ms. Erb asked who would maintain the trails in the green area,where they will be, where the access will be for other neighbors, and what the surface material will be. Mr. Dirr said they have committed to the county that once the development is complete, they will not seek to develop the balance of the land. They are open to papering that any way that's acceptable; they don't have an opinion. That may mean a deed restriction, or the county or someone other than the development owning it. Ms. Erb responded that if they're going for a cluster development based on the total number of lots that might be placed, they're automatically restricted from developing the rest of it until the town changes its zoning.A deed restriction on development would not preclude trails. Ms. Brock stated that it depends on how the planning board writes it. Ms. Erb said a basketball court was put in one of the housing clusters on Maple Avenue, but it was close enough to the buildings that it drove people crazy. Mr. Dirr responded that they added it because people said you have to give the older kids a place to do something. They tried to put it in a sensitive location. They're open to dialog on whether or not Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 6 of 25 it's included and the best location for it. They've attempted to lay out a couple of unique areas that will appeal to different groups of people. They want to promote intergenerational engagement. To a question from Ms.Wedemeyer, Mr. Dirt stated that this development will be developed all at once, and that the AMI that they agreed to will have to be maintained for the entire 15-year period. Ms. Erb will want to know whether the highest units will have a roofline visible from Dubois Road, Indian Creek Road, Route 96, and from across the lake. She thinks the visibility of this project will be of great interest to the neighborhood and other people in the city and the town - knowing whether they will see it from important public spaces. Mr. Dirr said they will be able to determine what the elevation of the peak of the roof is and the existing height of the trees, specifically the border trees that won't be impacted by the development. The one area that might be more challenging to demonstrate is the view from the other side of the lake. Mr. Wilcox said to use balloons and a camera. Mr. Bosak added that the approach into the city from Route 13 is also important. Ms. Fogarty asked whether they have done similar projects in terms of the 15-year rent-to-purchase model. Mr. Dirr said they have. Better Housing retained them for two reasons. The first is that they have developed over 25,000 units, both market rate and affordable, and 6000 rent-to-own units. They have seen the cycle run 15 years and about 80 percent that come out of that 15-year compliance are purchased by residents or people ... [inaudible]. The second reason is that this process is very expensive and NRP has a better ability to fund it. Mr. Cowan added that a major part of Better Housing's business is first-time home buyers and the home ownership program, so they see it as a natural segue into that market; they'll be able to provide assistance to the residents. Ms. Fogarty asked what the rents are and the percentage of people who stay the 15 years. She asked what happens if people don't want to buy their units. Mr. Dirr responded that all one-bedroom units will be the same.They will not be distinguishable by the income of the residents. A 30%AMI household in a one-bedroom unit will have the same quality unit as someone with a 90%AMI; they will be indistinguishable.There is a schedule of rents that will range, including utilities, from $435 to $1375 per month. There are 15 different levels of rent. The project will not dislocate renters; people who can't or don't want to buy their unit will be able to remain as renters, and the unit would continue to be owned by Better Housing. The homeowners' association would retain Better Housing as property maintenance managers. Mr. Bosak asked what happens in the case of a renter who continues to rent and who later decides to move. Does the next person have to be an owner? Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 7 of 25 Mr. Dirr replied that they make it available to the public, and if it doesn't sell after a certain amount of time, another income-eligible renter could rent the unit. Mr. Erb asked how Better Housing assures that a unit stays affordable once the income-eligible person sells it. INHS limits the equity a homeowner can take back out. Mr. Dirr responded that the structure is similar to INHS's, but there is a 50-year affordability requirement put on the development.Whatever ratio is determined initially, say 15% of units at 30% AMI, is retained for the life. Ms. Fogarty asked what year the GAR study was done and whether NRP had secured their tax credits. Mr. Dirr stated that the study was done last year and will be done again in the next month. They have not secured tax credits yet; the funding agency doesn't allocate tax credits unless they know it's a real project. Mr. Fogarty asked whether they have looked at securing funding for affordable housing that's owner- occupied. Mr. Dirr responded that in order to get the tax credits, the investors have to have ownership interest in the property for 15 years; that's the tax code. NRP addresses it with this ownership at the end of the 15-year period. You can't use the tax code as a vehicle to promote home ownership from day one. Ms. Fogarty said she asked the question because a resident found funding for affordable housing from New York State that was for owner-occupied housing. She's hoping that what comes out of this initial meeting is a real conversation between all residents and applicants. Mr. Cowan said that Better Housing gets funding for single, owner-occupied units, but not for complexes. Ms. Erb asked about tax credits. Mr. Dirr explained that there are two tax credits for this project. The first a low-income housing credit allocated to each state by the feds based on population; the state finance agency, Homes and Com- munity Renewal, allocates those credits through a competitive process. NRP sells those credits to investors for cash; they use those credits to offset gains they have elsewhere. The second source is a state low-income housing tax credit that mimics the federal program and is used by entities that have a state tax liability. The same investor has to have both federal and state tax liability. That accounts for 70 percent of cost of the development. In some other states, they have other financing vehicles. For example, there used to be more funds for owner-occupied units, and one of the challenges is that residents would get the money to qualify and then were unprepared to be owners: they did not have the means to maintain the house if something broke, and the municipality didn't have an enforce- ment vehicle to ensure that the homes were well maintained. This program provides assurance that the development will be maintained by an investor for 15 years and allows the residents to learn what it is to be homeowners. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 8 of 25 Ms. Fogarty countered that that is not the issue here. In Tompkins County, people are buying homes owned by INHS. Mr. Beach said he will be very interested in the results of their traffic study of the corridor between north of the hospital and Fulton Street, particularly factoring in the findings from the discussion of the Holochuck development, which was a lengthy and heated discussion, particularly on how it impacted those two intersections in the city. Mr. Dirt said the Holochuck development adds complexity to their analysis. They've been asked to use the information - anticipating that Holochuck exists and the required mitigation has been done - as a base for their study. There were other projects being contemplated when Holochuck was going through their process, so this study would not include them. Mr. Bosak was puzzled as to why Holochuck was required to take those projects into consideration and not NRP. One of those projects was Rancich's on Route 79, and as far as Mr. Bosak knows, Mr. Rancich still intends to do the project.There's also the senior living complex. Ms. Ritter explained that anything that comes out of the Rancich development will be different than what was proposed in the EIS, given the Comprehensive Plan. In discussions with John Rancich, he likes what's proposed in the Comp Plan, he likes the mixed-use idea, he likes the compact develop- ment and the connections between the neighborhoods, and he would like to participate in future planning of the West Hill area that includes that. Her feeling is that his development will change. Mr. Bosak countered that the same could have been said when Holochuck was being reviewed. The Rancich project has been before the board. Ms. Balestra said that Carrowmoor was actively in the EIS process when the Holochuck project was proposed. It's been four years, and staff have not received a traffic study that was part of the Car- rowmoor project. Within that period, staff have been speaking with John Rancich, and staff are confident that the Carrowmoor project will change considerably, to the point that when he comes back, there might need to be an entirely new review process. That's the main reason Carrowmoor should not be included in the traffic study for this project. Mr. Bosak said you can play that either way. If the board knows it's still a live project in Mr. Rancich's mind, and there are no recent figures, they're left with the figures they had. Either you come up with figures that reflect the change or they're left with the figures they've got. If the board was doing a full EIS, they would have to consider alternatives. In his letter, Mr. Luft has provided a prima facia case for an alternative. Mr. Bosak thinks there's something missing from the process if you don't consider an alternative like the one Mr. Luft suggested and tell us why this isn't a better plan. Mr. Dirt said he just received a copy of Mr. Luft's letter, and on a cursory review, the construction budget does not work. Building the cul-de-sac for$100,000 isn't even a tenth of the actual cost. Mr. Gustafson said analyzing his alternative would provide helpful information. Ms. Erb said the board will need the information on the stream setback law to work out the as-of-right number of single lots. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 9 of 25 Mr. Wilcox agreed that the maximum number of units that could be built in a cookie-cutter subdivi- sion would need to be firmly determined and that it needed to take into account all setbacks. Mr. Haefeli asked about the EPA Climate Change Showcase Community and whether the applicants have outside funding. Mr. Dirr explained that the county applied for and received designation on three different types of projects, and that funding didn't go to a specific project, but to the county. The purpose of the funding was to identify three different types of projects and to set some expectations for increased energy efficiency. It was also to ensure long-term that the projects agree to measure the impact of the extra efficiencies and to report that to the EPA to be used as models in the hope that the techniques used could be replicated in similar projects. Mr. Gustafson added that this type of EPA showcase development is also helpful in convincing other clients that it can be built and that it does work out and provides benefits for everyone. Part of the EPA goal with these model developments is to provide tools to show developers that these things are practical. To a question from Ms. Fogarty, Mr. Dirr responded that the EPA RFP and the county's response are available and NRP's original response to the county,which has changed significantly, is also available. He said they will provide it to the board. He's happy to facilitate the dialog with the county. Mr. Haefeli said there's been concern that NRP Group was the only applicant on this project. He asked why they find this so appealing when no one else bid on it. Mr. Dirr responded that they build apartments nationwide. The foundation of their company is in affordable housing. They think it's important that communities be able to house all of their residents. NRP has an infrastructure in place that is able to attract investors to developments that local partners don't. They use that infrastructure to benefit partners like Better Housing, who would not be able to get the terms NRP can get.They don't have the staff to put together a deal as complicated as this and they don't have the financial wherewithal to guarantee an $18 million project. NRP does not dictate the terms and objectives; those are dictated by the local partners. NRP works on behalf of Better Housing. Mr. Cowan said Better Housing were the ones that originally saw the RFP put out by the county. They thought the project being proposed was unique and interesting, but they did not have the ability or expertise to put together a project like this. They had experience with NRP on several other projects, so they reached out to NRP to evaluate it to see if it was feasible. They took their time evaluating the intriciacies of the project and recognized it could beome a model for other communi- ties around the country. The feeling was that this was worth exploring. Mr. Haefeli asked about accessibility. Mr. Cowan responded that he's been on the board of the Racker Centers for the past eight years, and accessibility is a major area of concern for him. The requirement from the state is for 5% of the units to be set aside for handicapped accessibility; they are promoting 15% fully ADA compliant, which Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 10 of 25 means lower cabinetry, wider access - many features that are federal requirements. The rest will be 100% accessible for visitability,which means anyone will have access to the units: there won't be stairs, etc. Mr. Dirr added that for ADA compliance, they respond to the three criteria: mobility, auditory, and visual impairments, and all three challenges are accounted for in 15% of the units. Mr. Haefeli asked, regarding the PV potential on the rooftops, whether the owners own the rights to do whatever they want on the roof. Mr. Dirr responded that the HOA will have standards that have to be adhered to, but the intent is that the units will be fee simple. Mr. Haefeli said there's not much incentive for renters to invest in PV systems. He asked whether there will be any possibility of cooperatively sharing all the rooftops across all the owners and renters. Mr. Dirr said there are a couple ways. Their desire is to have photovoltaics from day 1. Funding sources come and go quickly and they want to know that you're committing to it in the next six months. There are a number of companies that are doing leases, and he's not sure if that's a good or bad thing. He's not an expert. Ms. Collins had a suggestion for the traffic study. She frequently travels through the octopus, and not every vehicle is the same.An average tractor trailer is 4 times the size of a car and they go through that particular intersection frequently. Counting a tractor trailer the same as a car is skewed. She thought that should be figured in. Mr. Bosak said that the modeling technique that was used for the Holochuck project treated each intersection as its own entity, and the figures that came out of that in terms of minutes were wildly different than actual experience. A resident came in after the fact and explained that she had taken the trouble to time each car from the moment they came to a stop halfway up the hill to the moment they cleared all the intersections, and it was more on the order of ten minutes than three or four. He would like the methodology used to reflect real-world experience. Ms. Collins was interested in hearing more about the business model and how the investors fit into the process. Mr. Dirr explained that every project funded through Homes and Community Renewal has to adhere to a design standards handbook,which specifies everything from the size of the units, minimum cabinetry, minimum and maximum ceiling height, etc. That has nothing to do with the investor. The investor is interested in a couple of things: they have a natural anxiety that they're giving money in day 1 and are incurring losses for 10 years, but they're on the hook for 15 years. They are interested in ensuring that the project conforms to the requirements of the funding agency and that the project stays compliant from a tax-code perspective. In order to achieve that, every year the files are audited for things like income certification of new residents. There are capital reserve requirements, which have to stay at a certain level for the life of the project. There is an asset management team for the investors that inspects the property. Better Housing is ultimately responsible on a day-to-day basis for Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 11 of 25 making sure the requirements of the funding entity are adhered to, that the tax code compliance requirements are adhered to, and that the investor gets that information. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that the planning board got three letters that day from residents. He disclosed that he works for the Nielsen Company, which has ownership of a company that used to be called Claritas,which produces demographic data often used in market studies. He is not aware of any interaction between NRP and Nielsen. Ms. Erb told the applicants that when they come back for site plan, she will want to know where contractor parking and construction materials will be on site. If they choose the option to pump sewage, she'll need to know where the pump house and the alarm system are and details about the backup system if the electricity goes out. Because of Mr. Luft's pictures regarding runoff channels coming from the wetlands, she'll want them to track where the outlet of the wetland currently is and where it will be sited underneath the houses or how they will capture or divert it. Ms. Fogarty noted that she was at the site that day, before the rain started, and it looked like Mr. Luft's photos. She also said that in the traffic study, she would like to see something from TCAT saying what service they can provide to this area, if they can upgrade their current service,what their buses are like in the morning, the current ridership, and whether they're willing to go into the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS Deborah Geier, 402 Harris Dates Drive Ms. Geier and her husband own a property adjacent to the project. She pointed out on the map where her property is and the location of the future proposed basketball court where there are now trees; she pointed out the 90 parking spaces and the dumpsters in relation to their home; she pointed out the location of the stormwater basin and the community center next to her property line. Ms. Geier read from the following prepared statement: "Last year, my husband and I bought our first house (which is located on the former Biggs hospital complex) from Tompkins County.We wanted to get away from our busy and noisy neighborhood in Buffalo to live in a peaceful semi-rural setting.We really liked the house's unique architecture, but even more, we loved the location of the property. Despite its proximity to the Cayuga Medical Center, the nearby woods made us feel we were in the country. Although the house had been neglected and abandoned for several years, we looked past the broken windows, rotting porches, and animal damage, to see its potential as our home. Since then, we have been trying to restore it back to its original state. I have also begun the application process to put it on the Historic Places register, due to it's design by local prominent architect and former Ithaca mayor Arthur N. Gibb, and its unique architectural style and history. The county now wants to build a suburban development next to our house, completely destroying the character of our property and our neighborhood. We did NOT buy this property to look at parking lots, a basketball court, dumpsters, and stormwater basins. If the woods were cleared, we would hear and see nearly one hundred automobiles pulling in and out of the development several times a day, and we would worry our property would flood due to the decimation of the forest's root system. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 12 of 25 Town and County comprehensive plans and regional sustainability plans all state the goal to preserve and even add natural spaces. Here is county land with which that could be done, but obviously, the county does not wish to follow its own plan and preserve the natural space. So, my husband and I, although not wealthy people,would consider buying some of the property to save a portion of the woods and prevent the devaluation of our home due to a large suburban rental development at our doorstep. Marketing for this project states this is a good site because of its proximity to TCAT lines and the hospital.We all know TCAT does not have the resources now nor probably will in the future to adequately provide service to this site. From my own experience growing up in rural poverty, I can tell you that choosing this location is a huge mistake, because affordable housing recipients will have the burden of relying on cars for transportation.And please do not believe the nodal concept that the housing will be used by hospital employees. In an email,John Rudd, president and CEO of Cayuga Medical Center, seemed to believe the hospital's employees do not need this development for workforce housing, because they are well paid and finding housing elsewhere. In conclusion, this development would be substantially and materially injurious to the ownership, use and enjoyment of our property, does not fit with the character of the neighborhood, has many detremental environmental impacts, and is a poor location for affordable housing. For all these reasons and more, this location is a terrible location for this development." Nancy Gould, Happy Lane Ms. Gould read from the following prepared statement: "Hello - My name is Nancy Gould and I live on Happy Lane which is a short road at the end of Indian Creek Road. I have lived on Indian Creek Road/Happy Lane for the past 60 years and have seen much change. I remember when the original hospital was a TB hospital that later be- came the Tompkins County Hospital. It was with mixed feelings that I saw the demolition of this building and replaced by the current Cayuga Medical Center. The original hospital was a work of art and was not and could not be duplicated when the new hospital was built. Once a building or land is destroyed, it cannot be replaced. Today we have an option of whether to destroy much of the 25 acres of woods at the corner of Dates Drive and Indian Creek Road that is owned by Tompkins County. This is valuable land that needs to be maintained as is for the benefit of our environment. It is home for a large variety of animals and wildlife. In fact, a couple of years ago I saw a bear at the edge of the woods. For those of you who serve on the Town Board,you may think why should I care if we cut down trees and pave a large portion of the woods to build a development. This is not going to impact me. Tompkins County and the Town of Ithaca enjoy the recognition as a special community for peo- ple to work and live in. It is often included as a top city for people to move or retire to because of its colleges and natural beauty with its many parks and gorges. All of us need to recognize the importance of the environment and its impact on the entire community. Why would you consider destroying a large portion of these woods to build a housing project. I know many people are pitting those of us who wish to preserve these woods saying we do not support affordable housing in our neighborhood. This is not true. We are willing to speak with the County and the developers to find an alternative site for this project. However, we also need to recognize that this is not a "friendly" project for taxpayers. The developers wish to do this project because they hope to receive 3.9 million dollars in tax credits. If they do not receive these Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 13 of 25 tax credits, you will not see them moving forward with this project. Who do you think these tax credits will benefit? Certainly not the taxpayers of the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County. All of us will be paying additional taxes to support this project. Many senior citizens have reached the maximum they can afford to pay in taxes and if the growth in taxes continues, families who are living paycheck to paycheck and senior citizens will find themselves no longer able to pay these increased taxes and may need subsidized housing themselves. It appears this site was selected not because it was the best location, but because the County has land that it wishes to sell. Consideration needs to be given to how this development will impart the entire west side of Tompkins County including traffic, lack of parks and recreation, bus service and TCAT's ability to expand service, closeness to grocery stores and the impact of this develop- ment on our neighborhood school. Have studies been conducted to know how this development will impact the environment and the school system? Will the destruction of a large portion of this woodland cause additional water runoff? Where will the animals go? This development is totally wrong for this piece of property. It is out of character for the neigh- borhood and would result in destroying a large portion of a wood land that cannot be replaced in our lifetime nor our children's lifetime. Please deliberate seriously and be willing to meet with community members for further discussion before you decide on whether to proceed with this project at this location. This is not the time to approve a vote which will designate the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as the lead agency for the environmental review of this project. Please vote NO! Thank you." Steffen Schuhmann, 402 Harris Dates Drive Mr. Schuhmann read from the following prepared statement: "My name is Steffen Schuhmann. My wife and I bought the property right next to the planned development last year from the County. The proposed project would obviously have a huge impact on us, reduce our property value and most likely cause us to sell it again. The public has been repeatedly asked for input on this project. The neighbors who would be directly affected, but also the broader community have done exactly that on several occasions, and it has become clear from the very beginning that there is pretty much unanimous opposition to the proposed plan.We have already gathered hundreds of signatures to prove that, and I will provide you with copies after my remarks.What is the use of giving feedback when it is completely ignored and the process is pushed along as if nobody had ever voiced any objections?At least this is what it has felt like in the County meetings we attended and where we spoke out.We really hope the Town actually listens to the concerns of its citizens and takes their arguments seriously. GENERAL ISSUES AFFORDABLE HOUSING The main argument for this project is that Ithaca needs more affordable housing, and that there's no other location for it than the Biggs property.We can all agree on the need for affordable hous- ing, But it DOES still matter WHERE you put it, and this is CLEARLY the wrong location for it. You are putting low-income families in a place that either requires them to own one or more cars, which they may not be able to afford, or it makes them dependent on public transportation, which Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 14 of 25 we know is and will remain inadequate there. Also, wouldn't it be much better to enable some- body to build equity in something they own rather than forcing them to rent for 15 years?The only reason this location is proposed is because the county owns the land and wants to get money out of the sale. There ARE other, much better suited sites for affordable housing. What about the ChainWorks project?There will be hundreds of residential units right in the heart of Ithaca.Why can't some of those be made affordable?There are existing structures that don't need destruction of natural space.A walkable community that already exists. THAT's the place for affordable hous- ing! Ithaca could be at the forefront of the trend away from Suburbia back into our towns and cities, letting people enjoy nature instead of destroying it. Only a certain percentage of the units in this development would be actually considered affordable -exactly the minimums required to receive the low income tax credit. Why not make it 100% affordable housing? Because this is NOT about providing affordable housing. It's all about provid- ing as many tax credits as possible to the developers to make it affordable for THEM. NRP is not a charity organization. They want to maximize their profit, while the tax payers are footing the bill. CLIMATE SHOWCASE What angers me most about this project is that it claims to be a Climate Showcase. How can a project that would cut down the very trees that are supposed to absorb the CO2 we are trying to reduce, and then ADD to our carbon footprint by creating substantial additional car traffic due to the remote location-how on earth can a project like that be based on an RFP funded by an EPA grant for a Climate Showcase? So you cut down trees, increase the carbon footprint, and then sell this as positive for environment and climate?This is simply unbelievable, and we are currently talking to the EPA to let them know how their grant is being misused. TRAFFIC Another major issue is traffic. 96 is already at capacity right now, and it's backed up at times in both directions between the bottom of the hill and the hospital. This is especially alarming since emergency vehicles have to use this route to get to CMC. This project would bring yet another significant increase in traffic.And the argument that people will use public transit is invalid, since the current service is already inadequate and it's a fact that TCAT funding will be cut even further. Former Assistant Town Planner George Frantz says about this project's traffic impact in an affida- vit(of which I can provide a copy): "it could generate 300-400 or more vehicular trips per day on an already congested Cliff Street. There could be an additional 1 Million plus vehicle miles travelled on West Hill each year between the project site and the corner of Buffalo and Fulton Streets, causing an added 470-500 tons or more of CO2 in the atmosphere each year." He goes on to say that people wouldn't walk anywhere since there is no close enough place to walk to, and that the TCAT route "lacks the capacity to accommodate even a moderate increase in ridership". LOCATION The issue here is not how this project would be implemented-nobody has anything against energy efficient buildings or the use of solar power. But for housing to be eco-friendly and sustainable, WHERE you build is actually far more important than HOW you build it.Adding a few solar panels does not make up for the destruction of woodland and added traffic by poor choice of location. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 15 of 25 Here are some quotes about this project's location: Town Supervisor Herb Engman said this is a "good project at the wrong site". Town Planing Director Sue Ritter said "she is not sure develop- ment next to the Cayuga Medical Center, or anywhere in West Hill is the best approach, and that the current void of a commercial presence on West Hill would take a really long time to develop." And Ecovillage co-founder Liz Walker said about Ecovillage under Lessons Learned: "By living on a steep hill a couple of miles outside of the city, the site doesn't allow easy walking or biking access to shops, schools and other amenities. Public transportation is not frequent enough to be conven- ient." And to call this planned community walkable is beyond ridiculous. There is simply no place to walk to unless you count hospital visits, or consider a 3 hour hike on the black diamond trail to get groceries reasonable. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER In the short form environmental review the county did last year, it said that this project would not change the character of the existing neighborhood. Seriously?The project site is undeveloped green space, and the surrounding area is low density semi rural with one-family homes. How does plopping 60 clustered town homes NOT dramatically change that character? SPECIFIC POINTS IN SKETCH PLAN The developer stresses how this project supposedly fits with the Goals from the 2013 Southern Tier Regional Sustainability Plan. First, destroying green space should per definition never meet any sustainability plan. Goal 11: "Preserve and connect natural resources, open spaces, and access to waterways, to protect regional environment, ecology, habitat and scenic areas". The developer says the project meets this goal by only destroying 25% of the natural space. But the goal does NOT state to protect only 75% of a space.You can't just destroy part of something and claim it's ok since you could have de- stroyed a lot more. Goal clearly not met. Goal 6: "Support development of housing that is energy and location efficient". The developer claims that the project is "location efficient", as it is "surrounded by development", and they even call it an "in-fill" development(apparently using a term without knowing what it means).Are we really talking about the same site here? So, how can this goal be met, if we base it on a completely false assessment of the location. Goal 3: "Create a regional multi-modal transportation system that offers real transportation choice, reduced costs and impacts". This project does not create or improve any transportation system.All it does is put further strain on the existing one, and as for choice-there is none.You can't live without a car up there. Goal not met. And finally, goal 4: "Reduce fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions from transportation by reducing vehicle miles traveled...".This project would create MORE transportation and INCREASE fuel consumption, because you need to use your car for everything. There are NO stores or services (except the hospital) up there.And do we really expect all the residents to work at the hospital? How in God's name can you claim to meet this goal if you're doing the exact opposite of what it says? Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 16 of 25 The developer also says that higher density due to the clustered housing "increases walking, biking and transit use". Yes, but not if there's nowhere to walk or bike to in the area, and not if the trans- it system is insufficient.Again, it matters WHERE that clustered housing is. The developer stresses the "green design" of the project, but doesn't mention that cutting down woodland and increasing traffic and carbon emissions couldn't be LESS green and FAR outweigh any green building design.Also, using pervious pavement surfaces doesn't make the water magical- ly disappear. It still has to go somewhere, and remember we just destroyed the forest that KNOWS how to do drainage. PROPOSED RESOLUTION The highlighted items under "Considerations the board may use to limit the number of dwell- ings", at least 5 of the 8 points clearly demand a reduction in units for this project, if it were to go ahead. PLANNING DEPT MEMORANDUM Under "Existing Site and Environmental Conditions", it's claimed that there "does not appear to be any other obviously prominent drainage way" on the site". If somebody actually went there and looked, they'd see this is not true. It further says "there may be mature forest on parts of the over- all property, but planning staff on a site visit in August could not adequately walk through the property to observe the site conditions." So, I surely hope someone will actually try to get access to make that determination, because this IS a real forest, and not just brushwork.And you can even see that from the road. FINAL The amount of greenwashing and twisting facts in this proposal is mind boggling and frankly disgusting. This development is 100% suburban sprawl and will be another stab in the back of Ithaca's green reputation. There is not a single reasonable argument that could be brought in support of this project. It does not make any practical, financial or ecological sense whatsoever. I sincerely hope the Town sees that as well and saves our community from a huge mistake. Ithaca needs to preserve, not destroy its green space." Linda Grace-Kobas, 2 Evergreen Lane She has lived in her home for over 20 years, as have many of the people in the Indian Creek Neigh- borhood Association, the group that sued the county over its violation of New York State law by not conducting a full environmental review about this project. They expect that the town will conduct a full environmental review of a project that would drastically change the character, environment, and ecosystem of the West Hill neighborhood. She provided the following prepared statement: "We don't intend to give up trying to save the woods. We've had more extreme weather events, including damaging floods, during the past summer than we've had for years. We are seeing the effects of rapid climate change all around us, from our frigid winter to our short summer. The county has lost hundreds of trees because of it. It is madness to cut down acres of healthy wood- land for a dense development that could be moved to another site.And we are especially con- cerned about losing the wildlife habitat--those woods are full of wild turkeys, foxes, deer, owls, hawks, salamanders.Where would they go? Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 17 of 25 Many members of ICNA are long-time homeowners who treasure the natural beauty of West Hill. It would be a betrayal of the people of West Hill, and of the environment, for the town to allow the destruction of acres of woodland and wildlife habitat. Though Dirr said that the footprint of the development would be 6.5 acres,we understand from discussion at the county legislature meeting that at least half of the woods would be razed--more than 10 acres. The townhouses would be placed in the area of the densest and most mature trees,which would all be destroyed. And once you add the impact of hundreds of people and cars on the land - literally, a complete new village - the rest of the woodland and wildlife habitat would be destroyed.A"buffer"won't save the wildlife." Virginia Marquee, 208 Dubois Road She said she has lived there for 21 years. She read from the following prepared statement: "The land referred to as the Biggs property would be, in another time, considered by the state to be park land similar to Taughannock or Treman. It is that kind of woods. The town of Ithaca now has an opportunity to look into how this development got started and has been implemented.You have not been privy to the past year of county meetings where many community members spoke of the need to change the direction of this development. Cutting down a raw forest in a rural neighborhood is not the way to be sustainable, no matter how green it appears on the outside. Nothing is more green than a tree. I imagine that you have all been convinced to move this forward, but unless you have poured over the county and developer emails, and comments from the public,which began before the October 1st vote to sell the land,you will not have a complete picture of the lies and deception that have gone into getting it this far. Positions have changed, we have been called names, our characters have been questioned in the local media, but we have not changed our message. Enough is enough. The woods should not be sacrificed because something calls itself a green project. ICNA started out as 2 people standing by the side of the road, but we have grown to be a large group with a strong environmental message that has resonated within our community as a whole. We have people, including those concerned about their own neighborhood developments, calling us in support, doing fundraisers, and getting the word out there; and the word is strong... We need a better plan for raw woodland in this time of climate change.The woods have value to our community, all that lives within it, and the world. It is time for our town to be an example of forward thinking. From the very beginning there has been a cloud of secrecy surrounding the development, an obvi- ous attempt to keep the neighbors and other West Hill residents at a distance from the progression of events that landed the project on the Biggs property, and a total disregard for the impact that it would have. This is very different than how the town is conducting meetings about other devel- opments, and we are all watching this unfold. Even the house within Biggs the property was sold to an unsuspecting couple from out of town, withholding information that the woods surrounding their little acre was going to be a parking lot and 58 apartments. At past legislative meetings public officials would make statements like: "It's a good project, but in the wrong location,"A day later they would back-pedal and suddenly it became the right location. And, adding to our confusion is that, in a county that has such a strong commitment to support- ing local business, elected and appointed officials have no problem letting an out-of-state developer Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 18 of 25 call the shots. When we asked for and received FOIA documents from the legislature, many vitally important pieces, and significant email attachments, were missing. However, we did see a number of trou- bling emails. Specifically from NRP, the developer, to Ed Marx and Better Housing, the day prior to the Octo- ber 1st legislative meeting where the land sale resolution was approved. "I would strongly encour- age a vote sooner rather than later. If you permit a delay in the vote, it will only embolden the opposition, and provide them further time to gain momentum. Push for the vote so we move forward."We are the opposition, and we have certainly gained momentum. With so much bad blood surrounding the NRP project, is it really worth it to push it forward without community input? I am asking the town to pause, and not support going forward with being the lead agency on this controversial project. Should we keep it woods, make a park, make affordable housing in an environmentally conscious way for home ownership?These are all possi- bilities. But we who live here should have a say. Once the woods are torn down, they will not come back.We have been ignored and ridiculed at meetings, but the reality is that we have become a powerful force for the environment in this community. In the meantime, a number of other exciting development projects are taking shape in more ap- propriate locations closer to or in the city... the old county library, the Chainworks site, and Susan Cossentini's build on Five Mile Drive. What do these have that the NRP project does not? Four things that are very important to our community. First of all, right out of the gate there has been a strong commitment to public input and transpar- ency. Second, they are all truly walkable to services and much less dependent on the uncertainty of TCAT. Third, they are making a serious effort to use local builders and consultants. And fourth, there appears to be a genuine commitment to preserving the character of existing neighborhoods and the natural environment. When I attended a presentation of the Five Mile Drive plan, I was struck with the care Cosentini has put into marking trees, modifying the layout to cut the least amount of trees, and blending in with nature. She seemed truly interested in public input, and had a number of local consultants she is working with. This is how it should be done! So I ask you, on behalf of the community, West Hill, the woods, all creatures who live within the woods, and really, the air we breathe, to take a pause, look into the way the environment will be forever changed, delve into the cover up of facts on this project, and not agree to be the lead agen- cy on this horrendous project until you have the complete picture. Please see our website:www.indiancreekneighborhood.wordpress.com" Don Montague lives on Indian Creek Road with his wife. He and his son spent a lot of time playing in those woods. He has needed affordable housing from time to time during his 76 years. On another matter, he likes the project - he likes the cluster houses and the solar roofs, etc. - but he thinks it's in the wrong place. If he were searching for affordable housing, this particular woodland piece is the last place he would want to live. He knows a lot of people in need of affordable housing. They want to be Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 19 of 25 downtown. They want a grocery store nearby. They want a school. There's none of that around there. It's a very bad place for the poor. They want to be in an area where they can access their basic needs and don't have to spend a lot of money on bus fare and buses. The residents knew that if they said anything against the Overlook property, they'd be called racist and people would say that Tompkins County needs affordable housing. They built Overlook and there's no place for the kids to play basketball. The hospital doesn't want them: there's a sign saying it's for hospital employees only. There are a lot of people living there and people thought they were doing their part for the less fortunate of Tompkins County. They put around 155 units in and even planted a couple trees. No school. No grocery store. No place to play. No park.You can drive from the Octopus to Trumansburg and you won't see a park until you get to Trumansburg - just past Sure Fine, there's piece of wood- land. He doesn't know how that's been preserved, but this group will be in there shortly coming up with a nice cluster subdivision, saying it's good that Trumansburg has such a nice place for its poor. He's a journalist and has traveled to model places everywhere and wrote about them. This is a nifty little project.What he doesn't like about it is the momentum that it has gathered; it's almost like it's a done deal and we're watching the burial of our collective residential dreams. It's not a done deal - there are other places to build it. He has nothing against affordable housing.Just mention affordable housing and, as a liberal, he can feel his heart palpitate with empathy. But don't put poor people where they don't want to live. Let them live where they can buy food, educate their kids, and work their way up the social ladder. Rethink this. His family moved to Ithaca years ago for the purpose of living in a rural area - that's the way it was zoned. This isn't rural stuff-you build 60 units in a small space and say it's green and good, and it isn't so. Krys Cail said she's lived on Dubois Road since 1979. She agrees with a lot that was said. She was on the Ulysses Planning Board for nine years. She was happy when Ms. Ritter mapped out the unique natural areas and got appropriate zoning in place to make sure some of that area was conserved and to protect what was shown to be compromised water quality on the south end of the lake. The hydrology along the west shore between the Yacht Club and the inlet is a little different. It's a very shallow depth to bedrock and there's a tendency for water to sheet down the hill instead of collecting into larger streams. Indian Creek isn't a large creek, but it is one of the larger creeks in that area. Mean- while there is a sheeting effect, especially when you have a tremendous downpour in a short period of time. She and her husband are eligible to live in a place like the proposed development and she used to work for an affordable housing agency, so they are not offended by affordable housing. She and her husband have 24 acres that they have been able to maintain and pay the taxes on. The way they have done this is because they have a lifestyle of rural, low-income people. They heat their house with wood that they get off their property; they have an acre of garden to grow vegetables.When we talk about the character of the neighborhood, we need to talk about who the low-income people are who live there already and what their lifestyles are and how this new urban style of affordable housing fits in with that. Many of people who live along Dubois Road work in the trades and they are able to do some of the work at home in the evenings. People who have a party wall with someone else and no porch aren't able to do that. Part of how people live in their community is that they can do work around their homes in a rural setting. They've had meetings at Overlook and have talked to the residents; it is not a popular place for low-income people to live. It is the last place they want to go when they can't find an apartment because of all the reasons people have mentioned. If you wanted an affordable rural lifestyle,you would own a truck. She also wanted to discuss the issue of whether or not the property that "isn't being used" is in fact being kept in a natural state. It's pretty obvious that what you've got is back yards clustered in one place and buildings clustered in another. Realistically, that isn't going to be a nature preserve; that's going to be the area the families use as a back yard. If Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 20 of 25 you look at the property across Route 96, you have a very viable agricultural enterprise; if you look to the north, you see the homes along Orchard Hill Road where they have 5-to 7-acre lots;you go further down the road and people's lots become larger. It's a different kind of lifestyle and a different kind of community. She hopes everyone will come and look and she hopes people coordinate with the Town of Ulysses,which is located nearby and which has interests in maintaining the rural agricultural nature of the town in that area. The suburban sprawl does not add to the possibility of doing that. Irene Kiely, Woolf Lane Ms. Kiely read from the following prepared statement: "My name is Irene Kiely. I'm a 53 year resident of Tompkins county, and I have lived on Woolf Lane for the past 13 years. I chose to move from my home of 40 years in the Bryant Park/College town area because I wanted a retirement home in a semi-rural environment. Like many of my neighbors, I wanted a quiet and spacious lot in a neighborhood of single family residences within reasonable driving distance to stores, restaurants and services in the City. Woolf Lane has been an ideal location for my retirement home and a place for my 10 grandchildren to visit. The proposed high density housing development does not blend into our semi rural neighbor- hood. My hope is to preserve the character of the neighborhood and defend what we value. We represent a diverse group of races, ages and income levels, and we share a love for our neighbor- hood that is all about gardens, bird watching, backyard barbecues, children playing in safe yards, dog walking and enjoying the wildlife. Taking away the woods for dense housing would change the Indian Creek neighborhood forever and destroy the flora and fauna that gives our neighbor- hood it's unique character. I recognize I'm fortunate to be able to afford to live in this particular neighborhood. While I agree with the concept of making ownership and adequate housing affordable for more people in our community, I am concerned that affordable housing is almost always high density housing. In order to make housing more affordable does it have to be clustered. When living in the city of Ithaca, my late husband and I were involved in local politics, and he was Mayor from 1968-70. We were strong supporters of affordable housing within city limits because of the proximity to services and amenities. I became actively involved in the particular organiza- tion opposing the high density housing in Indian Creek because I strongly believe in our cause and our neighborhood. I also stand for the importance of respectful treatment of local residents. I have been disappointed in the handling of this project in terms of transparency,visibility of notices, and comments made to opponents of the development. I have been impressed by the commitment and passion of the members of the group,who have spent countless hours researching, networking, e-mailing, collect- ing signatures, meetings and giving presentations. What I have learned about the Indian Creek neighborhood and woods makes me even more determined to preserve it in the best way possible. I hope this board will treat us and our concerns, with respect. This probably sounds like "not me, not my backyard", but after spending the last few months canvassing my neighborhood and talking over the garden fence, I hope and believe I speak for all of them, not just me. At least 50% of our lane are over 55 and are either retired or will be in the next few years. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 21 of 25 Thank you. Irene Kiely" A gentleman stated that he disapproves of the location of the project. He lives next to the property, but said not to take his word for it. He urged board members to talk to the residents of Overlook, who would be eligible to live in this development, and see, other than being energy efficient,whether the physical location is good.A lot of the comments he and other residents heard from Overlook tenants is transportation: many don't work 9 to 5; they work second and third shift. TCAT doesn't come; they have to take taxis to go to the grocery store at 10 o'clock at night. Talk to them to find out whether this community at this location would be appropriate versus at a different location. A gentleman thanked the civility of the planning board. The first time they went to present them- selves and discuss things, they were attacked by a former county legislator, Tim Joseph, who opened up the discussion by saying he was dismayed by the racism he heard from the residents. The tenor of the meeting went down from there, and residents felt like second-class citizens - the red-headed step children of the Tompkins County Legislature. He said they were given snide looks, the chairman ignored them, nobody even took the chance to give people the time to speak. The only person who stuck by them was Peter Stein, and he said the same thing: great project, but in the wrong place.The gentleman commented that if the board decides to go ahead with the project and still call themselves progressives, they should demand that one of the requirements be that any builders and contractors be from the workforce of this area: local contractors and local labor unions. He thanked the board for being patient and for listening to the public. End of Public Comments Mr. Wilcox said that the board has learned to get public input early and to get it often. Ms. Erb stated that if she had any hope of walking the area that is the outer rim of woods destruction, she would need a lot of fluorescent tape on trees so she could find her way around. She requested that the rim of destruction-deforestation be extremely well marked so she can attempt to walk it. Mr. Wilcox said that sometimes people have the misconception that by taking this step, the board encourages development. The applicant will proceed at their pace, and they might decide to withdraw the application, but if they choose to proceed, the planning board is asking other involved agencies to concur that they will take the lead for the environmental review. The board neither wants nor does not want them to proceed; that's the applicant's decision. Mr. Bosak said he's not opposed to the resolution because he's opposed to the project - he doesn't know what he thinks of the project and won't know until the board is completely through the SEQR process - but with the relationship between the county and the town. He doesn't think it's appropri- ate to be considering the matter now, and if it is appropriate, it's not appropriate for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to be the lead agency. The reason it's not appropriate to consider it now is that the owner of record is on record as saying they are not considering selling the property. There is a formal resolution by the county saying they are not considering selling it.Although there's nothing illegal about it, it does seem weirdly inappropriate to go through this process given that the owner has said they are not considering selling it. How seriously do you take that statement? Looking at the other side, what he's seeing is a situation in which the county legislature finally understood they Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 22 of 25 would have to do a full environmental assessment and decided they weren't up to it. This is about the relationship between municipalities. His picture of this - assuming there won't be a negative declaration - is that the planning board will have to do the whole EIS and it will be "son of Holo- chuck." Even if it isn't, it will entail a lot of planning board time and a lot of staff time that has been dumped on them because the legislature, in his view, didn't feel like doing it. That's one reason he objects.Another reason is that one of the major issues is traffic, and the traffic issue involves not just the town but also the city. It's an intermunicipal thing, and it seems to him that the appropriate place for that is at the county level and not at the town level. Ms. Fogarty asked whether it would be inappropriate for the county to do their own SEQR. Mr. Bosak responded that it's their action; it's what they were supposed to do. In fact, they got sued for not doing it. Ms. Fogarty thought it would be a conflict of interest for the county to do their own SEQR if they're selling the property. Mr. Bosak responded that if the town were selling a piece of property, it would be the default for them to do the SEQR. Certainly it's the default in the county's understanding or they would not have passed a resolution saying they weren't really going to sell it. Ms. Collins said she's never understood throughout the whole process why anyone would go through this if they didn't know that they could buy the land. She had lunch with a friend who works for the county, who laughed and said, Now it's in your lap. Ms. Collins thinks it's good that it's in the planning board's lap because she guarantees that they'll do a good job. "We know how to do this; we've done it before; people on this board are extremely serious about this process." But she didn't appreciate that this is a kind of a joke at the county level. That aside, she is concerned with the weirdness of it. Mr. Wilcox asked Mr. Dirr to address the issue. He assumed they won't go forward if they have no commitment. Mr. Dirr responded that they have no commitment from the county. Mr. Wilcox asked if it was possible that they could never start the project because the county would not provide the land. Mr. Dirr responded that it is possible. Mr. Wilcox asked whether they have a letter of authorization from the county allowing them to proceed with the development on their land. Mr. Dirr responded that they do. Mr. Wilcox stated that the applicants are assuming that if they have an approved project that meets their criteria, the county will sell them the property. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 23 of 25 Mr. Dirr responded that that's what they're hoping for. He reiterated that they don't have a written agreement with the county. Ms. Brock said the owner of the property has given them written authorization to apply to the planning board. Mr. Dirr stated that the legislature provided a resolution that gave NRP the approval to move through the local approval process. From his own perspective, he thinks that if he were in the county's position, he would want an independent third party to do the SEQR process rather than the county doing the process for something they want to do. In addition, from other development projects, the local municipality is the most interested party in the SEQR process and they are the party in the best position to look at all the competing interests. So it is more typical for him to appear before the immediate jurisdiction in which the property is located. Ms. Collins asked what would happen if the planning board didn't approve the resolution to be lead agency. Ms. Brock responded that another involved agency, which would include the county legislature, could declare their intent to be lead agency and go through the concurrence process. She didn't know who else might be an involved agency.An involved agency is an agency that has an approval to give.The Ithaca Town Planning Board is an involved agency. Mr. Haefeli asked what triggers the sale of the land. Ms. Brock responded that nothing does. She stated that her understanding is that that was the whole point of the lawsuit: that the county, at one point, agreed to sell the land to the developer before SEQR happened, or possibly they did SEQR and did a negative declaration. In any case, it's a Type I Action because it's Type I under Town of Ithaca law, and that makes it Type I for every approval. That requires a coordinated review and there wasn't a coordinated review. The county can't legally agree, through an option or right of first refusal, on something that binds them to a future course of action before SEQR is done. So she can understand why the county pulled back and revoked their prior agreement, because SEQR has to be done before they can do anything that commits them to a definite course of action in the future. Mr. Wilcox asked, assuming the applicant goes forward, who would you want to do the environmen- tal review given the county's record? Mr. Bosak thinks the county legislature should do their own review. The have their own staff. His take is that they just don't want to do it. So although there's a piece of himself that resonates strongly in wanting the review to be done right, this is a point of principle. He just doesn't want to let them get away with it. The position the county has taken - We're urging the developer to come to you, but we're not considering selling it - is jive. Mr. Wilcox agreed that it's a way around the lawsuit. Mr. Bosak said that to him, it's a way round doing the work. Planning Board Meeting 09.02-2014 Page 24 of 25 Ms. Fogarty said that before she can seriously look at a SEQR, she wants to know that this community and the county and the developers have actually sat down and had a conversation, not a presentation. These people deserve to have a conversation about alternatives. PB Resolution No. 2014-048:Lead Agency- Declaration of Intent, Cayuga Trails Development, Tax Parcel No. 24.3.2.222, Harris B. Dates Drive Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on September 2, 2014, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Cayuga Trails Development located on Harris B. Dates Drive, near the intersection with Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.-3-2.222, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves developing a 58+/-unit townhouse community on a 6.5+/-acre portion of the 25.5+/-acre property. The proposal also includes a clubhouse, playground, and 1/2 basketball court, community gardens, a dog park, parking and stormwater facilities, and landscaping. Tompkins County, Owner; Better Housing for Tompkins County, Inc.,Applicant; P. Christopher Dirr, Vice President - Development, NRP,Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires subdivision and site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, is a Type I Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review because the proposal involves the development of more than 30 new residential units to be connected to community or publicly owned utilities (Section 148-5.B.2, Town of Ithaca Code); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed Lead Agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department no later than 30 calendar days after the Full EAF Part 1 and application materials have been received by all involved agencies. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Beach, Fogarty, Erb Nays: Collins, Haefeli, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board. Plv\nning Board Meeting 09-02-2014 Page 25 of 25 AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2014-049: Minutes of August 5, 2014 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Jon Bosak WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on August 5; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as amended, to be the final minutes of the meeting on August 5. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Wedemeyer, Bosak Abstentions: Erb AGENDA ITEM Other business Mr. Wilcox commented on the City of Ithaca Planning Board's approval of the Spencer Road project. The mayor and two council people representing that ward presented to the planning board that evening. Did they address the board as citizens or as members of the planning board? He has also seen one planning board member engage in a significant Facebook discussion about the decision-making process. What if this gets litigated: would that person have to recuse himself because he's expressing opinions on Facebook about the decision? He'll have more information for the next meeting. Upon a motion by Fred Wilcox, the board voted to cancel the meeting of September 16th. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Jon Bosak, the meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, bra DeAugistine, Deputy Tq^n Clerk