Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2024-07-16 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room,Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 Tuesday,July 16,2024 6:30 P.M. Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom.The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom (by raising hand icon) at httys://us06web.zoom.us/i/83643764382. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only,it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube (httys://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vvcXkJ6klVlibihCv7No /Iive . AGENDA 1. Persons to be heard. 2. Continue discussion of State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR)comment letter from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to the City of Ithaca Planning& Development Board for the proposed Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreational Facility located at Robison Alumni Fields on Tower Road on the Cornell University campus. The project involves replacing the Robison Alumni Fields with a 90,000+/-square foot, 56-foot-tall indoor fieldhouse building and a new synthetic outdoor multipurpose field along with new sidewalks and pedestrian connections, stormwater facilities,landscaping,lighting, and other site elements. The project will be largely located within the City of Ithaca with a portion in the Town of Ithaca. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board concurred with the Lead Agency declaration on January 16,2024. Cornell University, Owner;Kimberly Michaels,TWM,a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio,Applicant/Agent. 3. Approval of Minutes. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 NOTE:IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND,PLEASE NOTIFY CHRISTINE BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA(i TOWNITHACANY.GOV. (A quorum of four(4)members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website at https:Htownithacany.2ov/meetin2-calendar-a2endas/under the calendar meeting date. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD July 16, 2024 Minutes Present: Caitlin Cameron, Vice Chair; Members Cindy Kaufman, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms Absent: Fred Wilcox, Ariel Casper, and Kelda McGurk CJ Randall, Director and Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O'Shea, Engineering; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Ms. Cameron opened the meeting at 6:32p.m. 1. Persons to be Heard—Ms. Cameron announced that this was the time for comments not related to items on the agenda. There was no one wishing to speak. 2. Continue discussion of State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR) comment letter from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to the City of Ithaca Planning&Development Board for the proposed Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreational Facility located at Robison Alumni Fields on Tower Road on the Cornell University campus. The project involves replacing the Robison Alumni Fields with a 90,000+/-square foot, 56-foot-tall indoor fieldhouse building and a new synthetic outdoor multipurpose field along with new sidewalks and pedestrian connections, stormwater facilities,landscaping,lighting, and other site elements. The project will be largely located within the City of Ithaca with a portion in the Town of Ithaca. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board concurred with the Lead Agency declaration on January 16,2024. Cornell University, Owner; Kimberly Michaels,TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio,Applicant/Agent. Ms. Cameron reminded the audience that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board is the Lead Agency in the environmental review and the Town, as an involved agency, is reviewing comments that we will be sending to them regarding the environmental impact determination. The majority of the project is in the City of Ithaca and that is why they are the Lead Agency. She asked the Board if there were any outstanding questions, comments or concerns or edits to the draft letter that have come from all of the comments and conversations received thus far. Members stated they would like to hear public comments first. Ms. Cameron asked Ms. Michaels if there was any additional or new information she had for the Board. Ms. Michaels responded that she had just received the latest public comments and hasn't read through them yet, but she would be available to answer questions. PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 1 Mr. Arms asked about the NYS Carpet Law that the Board discussed at the last meeting, and he did not see that in the draft letter. Ms. Brock responded that she drafted wording to address that, and that her wording could be added to the draft comment letter before the Board. She read her proposed wording "Require that all artificial turf materials be tested for and demonstrated to be free from all PFAS before the materials are received. This is consistent with revisions to New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Section 27- 3313, which goes into effect on December 28, 2024, and prohibits on and after December 31, 2026, all carpet, including artificial turf, sold or offered for sale in the state, from containing or being treated with PFAS substances for any purpose." This adds a substantive requirement and an explanation that this is consistent with the law. Ms. Bageant said she had spent a lot of time thinking about the last meeting and the information given then and afterwards and the presentations from multiple sides of the issue. Each parry that has provided information has been understandably advocating for a specific outcome and they've provided the Board with a lot of information, but the Board are not necessarily experts. She noted that she didn't have a PhD in chemistry or toxicology or whatever it would take for her to really understand the science. She suggested that the Board bear in mind that everyone sharing information is advocating, they are not neutral parties. Ms. Bageant went on to say that the Board may not be experts, but they are stewards of this process and thinking about that has led her to conclude that she would be most comfortable if the Board recommended that the City find a positive declaration of environmental significance because that opens the door for a full environmental impact evaluation process. She added that she is not saying that the information provided contains lies on either side, but rather that the Board must keep in mind that everyone is advocating for their opinion or stance. The Board discussed this at the last meeting and settled that, but, now, she was more comfortable moving in the direction of a positive declaration to enable a full review. Ms. Kaufman said she did not think she would get any more clarity on the topic because there is so much information out there, but she agrees with Ms. Bageant's statement. She added that in her opinion, this field might be ok, but Cornell is planning many more and she didn't want this decision to send a message that the next 8 or 9 fields can be artificial. She felt that a combination of artificial and natural turf, say 1 artificial to 3 natural is the way she is thinking about the future. Mr. Arms stated that he has had a lot of experience reading technical literature and statistics and he spent about two days reading up on this and noted the ones he trusted at the last meeting. He said it will take a lot for him to change his mind and he is not advocating for further study. He said this has gone far enough and that the Board should be moving ahead. Ms. Cameron opened the meeting to public comment, noting that this was not an item that required a public hearing, but the Board was giving the public another opportunity to speak. That said, given the number of people, she set a 3 minute limit and asked that people do not read or repeat the same information they submitted in written format, that the Board has seen and read. (Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24 hours after the PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 2 meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.) Bethany Mays spoke, saying that she wanted to make 3 points. 1. Inaudible—but referenced something she had submitted. 2. She referred to a letter she submitted asking that the Board reconsider their decision of July 2"d The letter now has over 80 signatures supporting it, including a former EPA Regional Director and it is very clear that the weight of evidence is sufficient to require a positive declaration of environmental significance. The questions are too important not to address. 3. She spoke to Mr. Arms' statements, saying that we have reached the tipping point in the science and the regulatory action around PFAS and that is only one concern, microplastics are another incredible concern. After the Ithaca College artificial turf was approved there were new guidelines issued by the EPA and maximum contaminant levels and the summary suggests that one or more artificial turf fields could contribute enough storm water PFAS contamination to require municipal water systems to begin filtering PFAS to meet the new monitoring regulations. Ms. Mays closed saying that she felt the public comments received by this Board outline significant concerns that would be well addressed by a positive declaration. She added that she attended Cornell on an athletic scholarship and ran on those toxic fields, and she supports the athletes but not compromising on their health and the health of the community. Cheryl, Emily Jernigan, and Amina Mohamed read directly from a submitted letter from Emeritus Professor McBride who is a soil chemist. Joe Wilson spoke saying that he lives in Ellis Hollow and attended Cornell Athletics as well as coached football, lacrosse, and baseball at the high school division one and division three levels for several years as well as serving in elected and appointed public office. He also practiced law in California for 16 years and has been on the Dryden Planning Board for the past 8 years. He stated that the documents and information the Board has received from the applicant and the public raised serious questions about the significance of the negative impacts of installing artificial turf fields. Under the State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR)process,the information by opponents and proponents, at face value,put the impacts as moderate to large; long-term and irreversible; and the likelihood of the impacts at probably to inevitable. That makes the impacts"significant", and this should receive a positive declaration of environmental significance triggering a full environmental impact statement(EIS). The process for an EIS outlines the impacted areas and will provide a baseline for understanding the potential consequences and the consultants can be chosen by the Board rather than either side of the issue and at Cornell's expense. Yayoi Koizumi,Zero Waste Ithaca, spoke saying that previously she heard that public comments were lacking scientific evidence or peer review and now we are told there are too many studies. She went through various studies and comments that have been submitted that raise serious concerns about pollution from both the manufacturing and disposal of synthetic turf. PB 2024-07-16(Filed8/12) Pg. 3 Ms. Koizumi said her group and the public are concerned that the suggestion is to use recycled synthetic turf that have even more toxins than virgin plastics, and the promotion of recycling artificial turf which often results in more pollution by either dumping turf to reusing in other ways which are significant sources of microplastic pollution. She stated that the recommendation to test the synthetic turf for PFAS is inadequate and they are not the only toxic substance in the turf. There are thousands of other chemicals and heavy metals that haven't been discussed here but were discussed in the webinar was sent to the Board. She added that it is imperative that any testing be conducted by an independent agency and not by Cornell or synthetic turf companies to avoid conflicts of interest. Ms. Koizumi said that labeling these measures in the draft SEQR form as environmentally friendly and climate sustainable alternative is not only hypocritical but also a clear example of greenwashing these recommendations and makes her seriously wonder if the Board thoroughly reviewed the public comments and detailed evidence provided; and that the Board's actions suggest a disregard for the substantial evidence presented. Alisa,Mothers Out Front Tompkins, spoke, saying that she opposes the artificial turf fields and the forever chemicals PFAS that can cause serious health effects. All tests have shown artificial turf contains PFAS and the Board should not accept Cornell's assertion that their fields will be safe. She said she did calculations that show almost 9,000 students will be exposed to these harmful chemicals during the academic year and if the studies are even partially accurate, the harm is staggering and she wondered if the parents and students would be told about these risks similar to tobacco warnings and given the choice of playing on them. She then said that the lifespan of the field given the high usage will be far less than what they are saying thus necessitating the turf being discarded and entering the waste stream. Alisa then asked if Cornell has calculated the cost of replacing and disposing of the turf more frequently but more importantly if they are mindful of the moral responsibility for the health of its students and the surrounding community. She said she has so far seen little evidence to suggest that. She closed by saying that it is up to the Planning Board to take its time to become informed on all of the implications of artificial turf before even considering whether to give Cornell the go-ahead on this project. Margaret McCaslin, Mothers Out Front, said she was a science and environmental educator who has worked with Cornell Center for Environmental Research Statewide, Cornell Cooperative Extension and the local and statewide health department on various concerns around public health and environmental protection who lives in the town. She said she strongly supported environmental and health protections, and she was reluctant to make statements that might undermine respect for our environmental and public health systems, however there are two key factors that Cornell is ignoring in their claims of meeting the letter of regulations while actually violating the spirit of what are meant to be protective measures. The first factor was the time lag between changes that occur in the relevant sciences and the time lag in best practices between those changes and when regulations get revised and updated. The second factor related to the ways regulations get written or revised saying that companies successfully prevent the best science or best practices from being the basis for regulations and guidelines to maximize their profits rather than maximizing human and environmental health. This happens when industry groups PB 2024-07-16(Filed8/12) Pg.4 directly lobby state and federal regulatory bodies and then when there is a revolving door between industries and regulatory bodies where the staff of some agencies build more loyalty to their previous and/or subsequent employers than to the public good. She used the example of labeling of foods "organic" or approved use of vinyl food packaging that harms human health; Cornell can say they are meeting the Federal or State guidelines, but that is very different from saying they are meeting or following the current best practices or most recent science. Laura Schneider spoke, saying that she is a certified industrial hygienist and a small business owner here in town and she would suggest that people consider a risk-based approach. We are looking at artificial turf and natural options and either way it goes, it is a wonderful research opportunity for Cornell and could be great PR effort for the University, the town and the county if artificial turf is used and we start a monitoring program to monitor the environmental effects of the leachate. There will be a whole system of best practices to do environmental monitoring year round and over the course of the life of the field and human monitoring of the athletes and people who could be exposed during use of the artificial turf field. It would add costs, but there is a severe lack of data in this area and that's something the CDC and the EPA state clearly on their websites. There just isn't enough information to really know what the long-term effects are and what the indirect effects are, and this would be an opportunity to get that data. She added that there was nothing in the documents about any decommissioning plan or removal of the turf fields. There were no more people wishing to speak and the public comment period was closed. Ms. Cameron brought the discussion back to the Board. Board Discussion Ms. Cameron said she heard one question in there, and paraphrased asking the applicant what the plans are for the deconstruction and removal of the artificial turf. Ms. Michaels said that was in the June submission and that stated that the fields will have rubber and sand infill and will be recycled at the end of their lifespan,which is approximately 8 to 10 years. During the field removal process,the infill will be extracted and either reused in the replacement field or recycled at a turf processing facility. At the facility, any remaining the sand and rubber infill are extracted, separated and recycled to use as infill for future field options. As for the field itself,the green carpet part,it will include either repurposing it for use in another sports facility or converting it to mixed polymer plastic products. The project has identified two places in Pennsylvama that do this and that is the commitment that Cornell is making; to reuse what they can and send the rest to one of these facilities that does a combination of repurposing and recycling. In the June submission packet,a further explanation of what happened to the synthetic turf when it was being replaced because the public comments are saying it cannot be done,and so we provided real examples of what Cornell has done in the past. When the field is replaced, the infrastructure stays, and the pad underneath can be used even longer than the turf carpet. Ms. Cameron summarized saying that she understood that at the point,the Board had recommended a negative determination but added requests to explore natural alternatives and if using artificial turf, that PB 2024-07-16(Filed8/12) Pg. 5 the applicants commit to recycling 100% of the turf and submit materials for that end of life span and to also test all artificial turf materials for PFAS before they are accepted or used. Ms. Balestra asked the Board if they agreed with the new draft, which depended upon whether the recommendation is in support of a positive or negative declaration of significant environmental impact or a neutral stance. Ms. Cameron asked if those prior revisions and requests made the Board comfortable with the negative declaration and if the answer is no,then we need to reopen the question. Ms. Kaufman asked Ms. Brock to restate the request for the testing of artificial turf materials and asked that the third party testing requirement be added to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Ms. Bageant said that she is struggling with making a negative determination because this is topic of rapidly evolving science and the EPA and the State has recently changed their guidelines and so anything we say here is based on bits and pieces of what we have heard and read and that science may have changed. She said she would be more comfortable getting more information through the EIS process as that would be the most recent and up to date information. She said she would also like to make our conditions as strong as we possibly can. Ms. Cameron responded, saying that this Board is not the Lead Agency, and she asked Ms. Brock if we state a recommendation for a positive declaration, would we need to back that up with certain information. Ms. Brock responded that the Board would state in the letter to the City that the recommendation is based upon information and for the reasons stated in Mr McBride's letter, if the Board felt that letter encompassed and enumerated all the issues that concern you and refer specifically to anything else that isn't in that letter. She said the draft letter does set out the SEQR standards, and the Board can then make the recommendations if a negative declaration is made. Mr. Arms said he wanted to respond to the public comments, saying that the implication was made that we don't listen to them. He said that even though we may not cite certain people, reports, or comments, we do listen, and he prefers the written comments so he can look through them and go to their cited reports. He gave some examples of the comments that have been made that he picked up on, such as clearly lobbyist opinions, and we don't need to be told that, we know that. That said, the question is not whether or not there is pollution, but how much and how bad it is. Mr. Arms said that he doesn't feel we have been given enough hard evidence to change the negative declaration. Ms. Bageant said she preferred suggesting a positive declaration, but list conditions we would like to see if the Lead Agency makes a negative declaration. Ms. Kaufman said that there is no question that synthetic turf has environmental contamination but there are also benefits to a synthetic turf field and it is a question of how much is in use in any particular community. In this case, it is on central campus and there are a lot of benefits to its use, especially given the increase in usage under rainy or muddy conditions, and she felt a negative determination was appropriate. Synthetic fields used in tandem with natural turf is a compromise until we have better technology. PB 2024-07-16(Filed8/12) Pg. 6 She added that that should not be taken as a blanket approval of more synthetic fields, and she would be looking at each project independently. Ms. Cameron noted that she has been considering that that one of the fields is replacing a current artificial field and the other is inside, and there is State legislation that is not enacted yet, but, pending; and so, these questions are being raised at many levels and that raises doubt as to what level of impact we are at. She said it sounds like we have two for a negative declaration, which means we have the potential of not being able to reach a consensus for a majority of the whole to change the recommendation. Ms. Brock said the Board could change the letter to say that a consensus was not reached, but we do have the following recommendations. Ms. Bageant said she was uncomfortable making a decision with only four members present and she would rather discuss this at the next meeting when more members were present. Mr. Arms said he preferred to move ahead, with the concept of revising the letter to say a consensus was not met, but the Board had the following concerns and recommendations for conditions if a negative declaration was made. Discussion followed, with the suggestion that the letter be phrased that a consensus was not reached; adding the suggestion of a condition regarding independent testing be done and show due diligence in exploring other natural turf options rather than making a generic statement that alternatives were looked at; and reference all of the public comments and material that have been submitted for the City's use. Ms. Bageant had a concern that the research on alternatives should not be used to say artificial turf is appropriate on future fields. Ms. Balestra noted that there are no plans submitted that indicate additional artificial turf fields in the future. Discussion followed, and the Board suggested some language changes to the draft letter to reflect a revised statement about other natural turf alternatives. Ms. Balestra and Ms. Brock suggested"explore other natural turf alternatives that could reduce or eliminate artificial turf while meeting the applicants' goals of year round use." The Board agreed with that revision. Discussion turned to other concerns, such as other microplastics and adding a statement that all microplastics should be considered in weighing the impact. Ms. Brock said Dr. McBride's letter said microplastics could migrate offsite by wind or runoff. She asked Ms. Michaels if the under-field drainage treatment system could capture microplastics._Ms. Michaels said microplastics are very, very tiny and are on every single thing, such as our clothes. Ms. Brock said she is asking about just this project's impacts, and we are not looking at everything else in the world PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8/12) Pg. 7 Ms. Michaels said the stormwater system would not filter to that level. Ms. Brock asked if it is possible to design a system to do so. Ms. Michaels said that she did not know, and the stormwater management system meets NYS DEC guidelines. Ms. Brock said regardless of current guidelines, the question is whether there is a potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. That is the only standard the Planning Board can look at for its recommendation to the City. The answer is we do not know if a stormwater system could capture microplastics. Ms. Cameron suggested referencing the letter by Mr. McBride, which lists concerns that should be considered in their determination. Mr. Arms thought the concerns were covered in other statements in the letter. He said if we list everything it would be overwhelming; concrete is very bad; PFAS are the concern most prevalent here. The Board was in favor of moving forward with the letter as amended. Substantive changes included a revised statement: "A majority of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board was not able to agree on a recommendation to the City on whether or not the project has the potential for significant adverse environmental impact. However, the Board asks the Lead Agency to carefully consider the following..." comments in their review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) associated with the project..." followed by the list of items 1-7. Motion made by Liz Bageant, seconded by Cindy Kaufman to approve the letter as amended, unanimous. 3. Approval of Minutes - Motion made by Ms. Bageant, seconded by Mr. Arms to approve the minutes of May 21, 2024; unanimous. 4. Other Business Ms. Randall introduced the new Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval and Ms. Balestra previewed the next meeting agenda. The meeting was adjourned upon a motion by Ms. Cameron, seconded by Mr. Arms; unanimous. Submitt ayw 1�k Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk PB 2024-07-16 (Filed8 12) Pg. 8