HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2024-07-02 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room,Town Hall
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
Tuesday,July 2,2024 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 You Tube (httys://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vvcXkJ6klVlibihCv7No /Iive).
AGENDA
1. State Environmental Quality Review(SEQR)discussion for the proposed Cornell University Memig 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.
2. Sketch Plan Review for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue,located between the
Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The proposal involves
consolidating four parcels and constructing 6 five-story apartment buildings,containing up to 650 units/800
beds in studio,one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project is proposed to include some
small retail,parking areas,trails and pedestrian facilities,open spaces, stormwater facilities,and a community
center. This is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to
environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant;Michele Palmer,Whitham Planning,Design,
Landscape Architecture,PLLC,Agent.
3. Persons to be heard.
4. Approval of Minutes.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
C.J. Randall
Director of Planning
607-273-1747
NOTE:IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND,PLEASE NOTIFY
CHRIS BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA(a),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.gov/meeting-calendar-agendas/under the calendar meeting date.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
July 2,2024
MINUTES
Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair;Ariel Casper, Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant, and
Bill Arms Absent: 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
Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
• State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) discussion 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.
Mr. Wilcox stated that in reviewing the materials for the meeting, including public comments and
written news articles, it seems that there's some misinformation floating around. He went on to
say that he wanted to try to clear the air before we begin.
The Planning Board's duty,responsibility,job tonight, is to provide comments to the City of
Ithaca's Planning Board for use in making an environmental determination. The Town Planning
Board is not approving anything tonight. Approval may or may not come later, depending upon
the environmental review process.
The Town is an involved agency in the environmental review. One person has suggested that the
Planning Board should make a positive declaration of environmental significance. The Town of
Ithaca Planning Board can't do that. We are not the lead agency in the environmental review.
Some of you may be surprised to learn that the Zoning Board in the Town of Ithaca is also an
involved agency just as much as the Planning Board. If it gets to that point,they will have to
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 1
vote on granting variances for height and possibly for lot coverage.
Our job tonight is to prepare a letter to the City of Ithaca Planning& Development Board. This
is not a public hearing. The public will not be given a chance to speak tonight. The Town has
received extensive comments over the course of this project; and certainly, within the last couple
of days; and we have all of those available to us tonight.
Mr. Wilcox invited Ms. Michaels to begin her presentation.
Kimberly Michaels —stated that she had a presentation that walks through the environmental
impacts on land and water, and she would like to walk the Board through that. She added that
she had read through Ms. Balestra's draft letter and used it as a starting point for the discussion.
There were some questions that she had, and she provided some information about some of
those.
Ms. Michaels introduced the applicant team, starting with David Harrick from TG Miller
available for specific stormwater questions; Trey Sasser from Sasaki Associates, civil engineer
who has designed the artificial turf fields and has been designing fields for over 20 years and can
speak about the technical aspects of the project; Jay Peters, Risk Management Consultant, who
has a background in environmental science and can talk about some of the concerns the public
has brought forward as well as speak to some of the misinformation that is out there; and Alicia
Farmer, landscape architect from Fisher Associates. .
Mr. Wilcox canvassed the Board with options on how to proceed. The Board could restrict
comments to the proposed development activity within the Town of Ithaca. We can comment
about the entire project, or we can restrict our comments to the artificial turf portion in the Town
of Ithaca. We can choose which environmental issues we want to comment on, or we can choose
not to comment at all.
Mr.Arms responded, saying that given the comments we've had,he thought it might be more
appropriate to look at the project as a whole.
Mr. Wilcox responded that his thinking was that the only purpose is to provide comments to the
City of Ithaca to assist them in making the final determination of environmental significance.
The Board can certainly provide them with comments about the portion of the project in the City,
but Fred thought it might be more beneficial to concentrate on the portion of the project in Town.
He added that there seems to be some confusion about what exactly is being proposed.
Mr. Wilcox clarified, saying the proposal is an artificial turf field that will replace an existing
artificial turf field. The documentation says "new,"but it is replacing an existing one. Then there
is an artificial turf field proposed inside a new fieldhouse. The only portion of the project in the
Town of Ithaca is a portion of the enclosed fieldhouse.
He said he was not trying to short circuit the discussion but trying to focus it on what he
perceived as being most important for the Board to comment on. He asked for the Board's
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 2
opinion, because how the Board proceeds will affect how much of the applicant's presentation
the Board will want to see.
Ms. Bageant stated that conceptually what Mr. Wilcox said makes sense,but her understanding is
that the Board is providing a recommendation to the City on the project as a whole, not just the
Town's corner. Mr. Wilcox responded that it is up to this Board and added that the Zoning Board
is just as much an involved agency as the Planning Board, and they chose not to provide any
comments.
Ms. Bageant responded that on principle, she was more comfortable evaluating the project as a
whole but would defer to the majority of the Board.
Mr. Wilcox said that Mr. Arms has essentially stated he would like to look at the whole project.
Ms. Kaufman stated she would like to look at the whole project.
Ms. Cameron stated that she would like to look at the whole project, because at past meetings,
the Board has looked at and asked questions about the whole project.
Mr. Wilcox said the consensus is to look at the project as a whole and have the presentation, but
he pointed out that there seems to be some confusion, based on the comments received, about the
fields and noted that there is one outdoor field and one indoor field being proposed. Many of the
comments have treated the project as if there is a single field and the environmental impacts are
the same for both. He said that in his mind, the potential environmental impacts of an indoor
field and an outdoor field are different.
Kim Michaels,Fisher Associates,Landscape Architect Presentation
Ms. Michaels began with the question of why artificial turf is necessary,noting that turf is the
only option that meets the durability requirements for the Cornell programming, including all the
performance and safety parameters. It is projected that 4,470 students will be able to use this
new facility, and she showed the athletics' schedules for the campus.
She went on to say that the existing natural grass field can be scheduled for use three hours a day
in the fall because of the condition of the grass and the rigor it goes through being used. The
artificial turf, in contrast, can have activities scheduled 17 hours a day all year long. The benefits
associated with that in terms of what it brings to the program and the student body are obvious
there.
She mentioned that a lot of comments that have been submitted talked about the growing season
in Ithaca and how natural grass works great if it is maintained properly. But the grass needs to
grow and to recover from the rigorous use; and here in Ithaca, grass does not actively grow from
October through March. Our growing season is May through September,which does not align
with the school year.
Ms. Michaels then made statements about the environmental assessment form:
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 3
Impacts on the land. All excavated materials will remain on site and the site is previously
developed with no geological features present.
Stormwater. There are no surface water features on site. There is a storm water mitigation
design in the documents and a full SWPPP will be submitted that will comply with New York
State DEC regulations. It is being designed to remove particulates from the project. The site is
not in a flood zone and not near a water body.
Emissions. The project will not generate any emissions other than during the 16-month
construction period, and dust control measures will be used.
Plants and Animals. The site is a previously disturbed site with an existing artificial turf field
and a natural grass field. Sixty trees will be planted associated with the project and 18 existing
trees will be removed for a net addition of 42 trees. There will be meadow grasses, a rain garden
and native trees and shrubs. The red tailed hawk's favorite nesting poles will be maintained
throughout the project and the applicant team is actively working with the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology, who submitted a letter stating that they are not concerned about the safety of the
hawks due to this project.
Agricultural Resources. The site is not in or adjacent to an agricultural resource and there are
not scenic resources or locally defined scenic resources adjacent to the site.
Building Materials. It is not a historical site, and the closest building is 350 feet to the north.
The materials will be appropriate to campus structures.
Open Space and Recreation. The site is currently used for open space and recreation and the
project will increase that usage.
Energy Use. The project will comply with NYS Energy Code and the Ithaca Energy Code
Supplement.
Transportation. There will be new pedestrian paths and amenities and bicycle parking
spaces.
Fire Safety. The City of Ithaca Fire Department has approved the access plan.
Noise and Light. Exterior light will be LED and dark sky compliant. Interior lighting will be
LED, and occupancy based.
Construction Impacts. Projected to be approximately 16 months long at its highest point with a
maximum of 80 workers at its height.A logistics plan is in the packet of information.
Human Health. This was the topic people were asking about, and she asked Mr. Peters to take
over the presentation.
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 4
Mr. Peters stated: "I ama Human Health Risk Assessor with a degree in toxicology from
Northeastern University and a master's degree in environmental health from Tufts University and
in this profession for 30 years, working on contaminated sites across United States. It is my job
to evaluate contamination in soil groundwater, surface water and so forth to determine if
conditions are safe for people and the environment and adhere to NYS rules and regulations and
I have used that same approach to evaluate synthetic turf from a scientific perspective and really
try to resolve the question of whether artificial turf is safe.
When we consider a risk assessment, whether it be evaluating soil in an industrial property or a
residential yard, or whether the groundwater is safe to drink, we start by asking what are the
chemicals that are even present, and we get that by collecting samples and analyzing those in
accredited labs. In the case of synthetic turf, we know is that the blades are made out of
polyethylene and the infill, if it's crumb rubber, is made out of recycled tires. There is a lot of
information on the composition of crumb rubber and some of those chemicals can produce
cancer and others can produce other kinds of health effects.
Then we look at how someone would be exposed to those and whether it's a natural or synthetic
field, there is a lot of intense body contact, so dermal contact and chemicals absorbed through the
skin and/or inhaled in the dust particles that become airborne. Then you have to ask whether
those chemicals are actually available for a biological interaction, called bioavailability. He used
the example of a grapefruit, saying that the sugar and vitamin C are bioavailable, but the fibrous
part is not. There have been a lot of studies that have specifically looked at whether the
chemicals in crumb rubber are bioavailable and concluded is that only minute fractions of those
chemicals are actually bioavailable and using the results of those studies,researchers have been
able to estimate the health risks.
The conclusion is that that the exposure does not contribute enough to cause a health risk. These
conclusions are being evaluated against US EPA guidelines for what is considered an acceptable
risk.
If the crumb rubber was on a contaminated property, we would conclude that the crumb rubber
didn't pose a hazard that required cleaning up. Therefore,we can be pretty sure that crumb
rubber isn't a problem. The EPA recently did a study where they measured blood and urine of
athletes before and after they played on synthetic turf fields and what they found is there was no
difference in the metal concentrations or other indicators of any exposure to anything in crumb
rubber or anything else in the turf field system,before and after they played. That is very
conclusive evidence that people are not exposed to whatever chemicals are in those systems."
Mr. Peters went on to say "There has been a lot of discussion regarding artificial turf and PFAS.
"Turf is made with a fluorinated polymer and to understand the significance of that; PFAS are
carbon chains that have a lot of Florine atoms stuck on the material and that makes them very
resistant, almost impossible, to breakdown in your body or in the environment. That is the
concern, that they are here forever.
There are polymers, and that is basically what's in plastic, and then there are non-polymers,
which are basically, coating. These nonpolymers are the ones that environmental agencies are
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 5
concerned about. These are coatings that can make things non-stick,waterproof, and stainproof.
It's used in many, many things; aircraft, fire suppression foam, personal care products such as
sunscreen and bug spray, and many pesticides. The leaching into the soil and then into our
bodies is the concern.
The PFAS used in artificial turf is considered inert. It is used in sutures; it is used in Europe for
food packaging, so whatever is in there does not leach out." He explained some other testing
mechanisms on plastics with PFASs in them.
Mr. Peters went on to say that synthetic turf tested right from the manufacturer has lower levels
of certain compound levels that are much, much lower than what exists as a background
condition in soil. He explained that there have been tests on soils taken from natural turf and out
of a random backyard that found PFAS in every sample, including remote locations. It is present
in rainwater and therefore soil and because it doesn't break down, it is found everywhere, even
remote states. That isn't to say that is good; it's not great that we have PFAS in our environment
everywhere,but samples of artificial turf from the environment have PFAS in them.
Ms. Michaels took over again, continuing the presentation by noting that the project is consistent
with the community character and then went through the draft timeline.
Board Discussion
Mr. Arms said he believes what has been said is that these fields can be made out of recycled or
new materials but there is no commitment to the percentage of recycled/new materials given and
there is no commitment to what will happen at the end of its life. A letter submitted stated that
the College is committing to the turf being appropriately reused or recycled at the end of their
life.
Ms. Michaels responded that the proposed synthetic fields can be recycled, and Cornell is
committed to sending them to be recycled. She said she doesn't know how to refute statements
that say these recycling centers do not exist. Our design consultants have spoken to recycling
centers who do this. They will take the infill out, extract that, and they can either reuse that
again in a replacement field or they can recycle it.
Mr. Wilcox responded that we should be careful about commitments for something 10 years
down the road and the current field cannot be recycled because it is made of different stuff.
Ms. Michaels agreed and said that Cornell has demonstrated a commitment to recycling when
the facilities to do so are available.
Mr.Arms said these questions basically come from a letter written by the Town's Conservation
Bboard which points out that Cornell by and large is a good citizen when it comes to
environmental matters and suggested that this might be an area in which they could lead the
community. He said that he is comfortable with those two points and would like to put that in
our letter; to ask Cornell to commit to using recycled material and a recycling plan.
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 6
Ms. Michaels stated that the crumb material is recycled, but there are other components to the
turf field that may not be recycled, and she was not sure that all materials can be made by
recycled pieces.
Ms. Kaufman asked about the alternatives to synthetic turf that have been suggested in many
comments. Mr. Wilcox asked if she was asking about the indoor field also, because the inside
field would have to be dirt or synthetic. He again stated that the indoor and outdoor fields will
have different environmental impacts as far as rain fall and runoff where indoor fields will not
have that. There isn't much of a choice, without unlimited funds, for an indoor natural field.
Ms. Brock noted that there has been information submitted that real turf can be used inside. She
suggested the Planning Board ask the applicant if that was possible.
Ms. Kaufman responded that she would focus on the outside field and asked Ms. Michaels to
speak to those suggestions, although she noted that those alternatives seemed to be from drier or
different climates than here.
Ms. Michaels said that those "look at what Arizona did" or"look what they do over here", and
"when managed correctly this is perfectly reasonable request." comments were given to her,but
there is nothing that is going to meet the needs of 17 hours a day use in this climate. Natural
grass needs time and rest to grow. Those other places are in different climates and who knows
what the intensity of use is.
Ms. Balestra stated that she watched the June 25, 2024, City Planning & Development Board
meeting, and they asked and suggested that the applicant speak with Frank Rossi at Cornell, who
is the College's turf expert and is involved in managing some of the athletic turf they have.
Ms. Michaels stated that the applicant team are reaching out to him and will get some comments
from him. That said, there is not a natural turf field out there right now that is able to be used 3
hours a day in the fall, even with Mr. Rossy and his team managing it.
Ms. Cameron asked about PFAS, and if the product being proposed includes PFAS in the
product. Ms. Michaels responded, "absolutely not" and asked Mr. Peters to expand on that.
Mr. Peters stated that it likely has fluorinated polymer because that is used to strengthen the
blades of artificial"grass"but no the non-polymers or PFAS are not added to the artificial turf,
so there is no reason to believe they would be there.
Ms. Cameron said then do artificial turf installations contribute to PFAS?Where are they coming
from? Mr. Peters responded that it is in ground water because it is coming out of ground water,
septic systems, industries that are using it, surface water coming from wastewater treatment
plants and air from manufacturing plants and all over the soil because it is in the air and the
rainwater.
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 7
Ms. Cameron said that it is her understanding that State legislation has been passed that will go
into effect in 2026. Ms. Brock responded that the legislation says that no artificial turf sold or
offered for sale can contain or be treated by PFAS for any purposes.
Ms. Cameron asked if the proposed turf meets that legislation and Mr. Peters responded that it
does.
Ms. Cameron asked about the procedural aspect of that, in that it has been passed,but is not in
effect now, adding that there is pending legislation that bans artificial turf that has not been
passed as of this moment. Can the Board consider those now?
Ms. Brock responded that there are thousands of bills introduced and a small percentage is
usually passed and then a fraction of those are actually signed into legislation, so in terms of
legislation, unless it is actually adopted and signed into law, you should not be basing your
decisions upon that. This law that is being talked about does have an effective date at the end of
this year, but it covers more than just PFAS and it has a number of other things that have to
happen along with it.
She added that a public comment regarding PFAS states that PFAS are in the turf before being
installed, and she was not saying the comment was true or false, but the applicant said it is not
added. The comment said PFAS is needed for some of the machinery, so it may not be
intentionally added to the plastic blades, but PFAS is on the machinery that is making the blades
and ends up contaminating the blades. Ms. Brock asked Mr. Peters to state if that is accurate and
whether the turf will contain any PFAS from the manufacturing process, whether added
intentionally or not, when Cornell receives the artificial turf before any exposure to the natural
environment.
Mr. Peters said he can't speak to the manufacturing process but turf being sent to the University
can be tested prior to installation to see if there are any PFAS and that is something that is being
asked now by some.
Ms. Bageant suggested that be added to the Board's letter to the City.
Ms. Cameon responded that that may not be valuable as the PFAS are in the environment also.
Ms. Bageant said she would not suggest testing for a zero level, but getting a level would be
informative.
Mr. Casper spoke to that comment about PFAS being present in the environment from other
sources: Is there any stormwater filtering options at a higher standard that can be implemented to
address that?Ms. Michaels responded that it is going to be outside and subject to the
environment and not as a result of this project and the environmental challenge for us all is how
to filter these forever chemicals. She added that Mr. Herrick could maybe add more.
David Herrick,TG Miller, spoke, saying that the stormwater approach is consistent with DEC
and Town requirements as in every other project. This is a new paradigm, trying to filter to this
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 8
extent. These particles are nano-millimeters, and they are not regulated by the DEC, but to the
extent that we can, we are using geotextile practices to help filter to the extent we can.
Ms. Michaels noted microplastics that are used in clothing that we wear and the detergents we
wash them in.
Ms. Casper responded that he is well aware of everything that contributes but you are asking the
public to embrace yet another source that is outside and will contribute more and maybe the
college could step up and do something about that. Ms. Michaels responded that they are not
asking the public to embrace it, but they are asking this group to weigh the environmental
impacts against the benefits of it and it is not illegal. Artificial turf is allowed, and it is easy to
lose focus on what the conversation should be, especially when we all want to be
environmentally responsible, and the public is very passionate, so the Board is in a tough place.
Ms. Bageant said that many of the comments are some sort of"we think this should be illegal"
and this is not the legislative body that should be hearing these impassioned speeches as much as
the state legislators who have that purview, and she encourage the public to reach out to their
state legislators. We are not a body that can do that or make a decision that this cannot happen
because it should be illegal when it is not.
Mr. Wilcox added that this is not a popularity contest either; elected officials are a popularity
entity. The Planning Board does not function that way; it doesn't matter that you have thousands
of signatures on a petition; it doesn't matter that there are 500 that say no and 1 that says yes; we
operate under the rules and regulations set by either or all the Town, State and Federal
governments.
Mr.Arms added that we have received comments from the applicant saying artificial turf are
completely safe and materials from the public that say they are not, and I have read many, many
of the comments and materials; some obviously slanted and others that are incomplete or evasive
or not substantiated or distinctly rhetorical. So, after looking at the Conservation Board's
suggested DOH report with a complete bibliography and the EPA and CDA report, it is not
definitive with a yes or a no as to health issues. All three did end up saying there were no health
issues. He noted that the chemicals are on the natural turf also and there were no particular
results pointing to artificial turf being worse.
He said he noticed the City came to the same conclusion, but he wanted the public to know that
we do read their comments and the materials.
Ms. Brock noted that the DEC has circulated some operational guidance for wastewater
treatment plants and industrial users.
Mr. Wilcox noted that we have not talked about what the alternative could be and if it is natural
turf, no one has talked about it, or the chemicals used on natural turf and their environmental
impacts.
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 9
Mr.Arms responded, saying the Conservation Board's list did cite two papers which he read, and
he was astonished at how badly natural grass came out in the testing.
Ms. Cameron asked about the bird strike question and if there is a concern and are there any
treatments on the glass in the project.
Ms. Michaels responded that the materials indicate there will be a"bird friendly"film and there
is an alternate bid specification for"bird friendly glass" so it is being considered. The Lab of
Ornithology has guidelines, and it is a good practice for Cornell to follow those.
Ms. Cameron asked about the trees, and if there is any possibility of keeping some and if not,
why they are not being replaced in kind. Ms. Michaels responded that the red oaks being
removed are small and they will not survive, and they are being replaced with different species
because of the overall campus plan and the goal of diversifying the species throughout campus as
there have been recent decimating diseases that impacted campus and so diversifying is the goal.
Mr. Wilcox referred to the draft letter, and the question is whether this Board feels that any
particular impact rises to the level of a significant adverse impact and if anyone is at that point as
it relates to trees, stormwater, etc. The Board did not feel that any particular impact rose to the
level of a significant adverse environmental impact.
He turned to the artificial turf issue, and said he has the sense that the Board would like to add a
comment about testing the turf prior to installation for PFAS.
Ms. Cameron said she was asking the question but didn't think it rose to a commitment being
required.
Ms. Kaufman said she thought there should be more information on alternative natural turf being
looked at.
Mr. Casper said that the applicants did a beautiful job on the building design.
Mr. Wilcox stated for the public, there is an expectation that Cornell will come back to the Town
to build a women's field hockey facility out on East Hill and that that will come at some point in
the future, and this discussion is probably going to happen again as the NCAA has stated that
field hockey should be played on artificial turf.
Ms. Brock went through the City's SEQR Part 3 form and noted some minor changes that should
be brought to their attention.
Ms. Balestra said she would add the comments related to artificial turf and then the Board can
review the revised letter at the next meeting. That said, there will only be 4 members at the next
meeting, and she asked if the Board was comfortable with that.
Ms. Bageant said if we are confident that there will be a quorum, and there doesn't seem to be
much disagreement on what we have said tonight, then that should be fine.
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 10
• Sketch Plan Review for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue,
located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East
Lawn Cemetery.The proposal involves consolidating four parcels and constructing 6
five-story apartment buildings, containing up to 650 units/800 beds in studio, one
bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project is proposed to include
some small retail,parking areas,trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces,
stormwater facilities, and a community center. This is a Type I Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell
University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer,Whitham Planning,Design,Landscape
Architecture,PLLC,Agent.
The Project representatives gave a presentation depicting the project.
■ The project is targeted to graduate professional students.
■ Located adjacent to Maplewood 1, but a different design.
■ Six residential buildings and one community center with low parking ratio.
■ Study lounges at the main entrance of each building.
■ Cornell retains ownership with a long-term ground lease with Greystar.
■ A redevelopment site and an anticipated Planned Development Zone
■ Will connect the Ithaca Recreational Trail by a multi-modal path with the public welcome
to use also.
■ Fossil fuel free.
■ 25%lot coverage with buildings, leaving 75% as open space with a large lawn in front of
the community center.
■ Taller buildings laid out to maximize views and a network of pedestrian walkways.
■ Looped roadway.
■ Future submissions of SWPPP, SEQR, Energy certification, and drawings.
Board Comments (*some audio issues)
Mr. Wilcox stated that three curb cuts bothered him for potential sight issues. He also said he
would like something done to the staging area that still exists after Maplewood I and he does not
want that used for Maplewood 11.
Ms. Kaufman asked if there were lessons learned from Maplewood I that will transfer to this one.
She said she was not on the Board at that time but heard there was a lot of input from this Board.
Mr. Wilcox said there was a lot of push and pull, and this one will not be seen as much, but
understands the comment.
Mr.Arms asked about the East Hill Plaza development that was in the Cornell Long-Term Plan.
The representatives stated that the idea of a massive mixed-use development did not work out
and the University goal is to focus on the plaza as it exists. There have been major maintenance
projects done there and the gas station is still planned but not submitted yet.
Ms. Bageant asked about the intersection as it relates to safety and if there are plans to deal with
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 11
that. It should be on the radar for this project. Right now, residents of Maplewood I are cutting
through the parking lot and down steps to get to the bus stop.
She said she likes the density and asked why they are not modifying the existing PDZ rather than
making a new one. Ms. Randall responded that this is a separate parcel, and some PDZ design
standards would not transfer to this new site.
Ms. Bageant asked about housing for families and that need, and the applicant responded that
families tend to like single-family houses, and they are aware of the need, but this is not
marketed to that demographic.
Audio failed—some discussion on transportation needs and access to TCAT and carshare models.
Those concerns and possible conditions can be discussed during the site plan phase.
Ms. Brock noted that the tentative schedule does not list the need to adopt the local law for the
Planned Development Zone and issues that may be associated with infrastructure needs. There is
a statement that an Environmental Impact Statement may not be needed if information is
submitted proactively, but the key is that a negative determination of environmental significance,
know as SEQR determination, will be the process for that, not whether or what documents or
studies are submitted.
The applicant group thanked the Board for their time and comments.
• Persons to be heard (*audio issues continue)
(Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24
hours after the 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.)
Mr. Wilcox stated that generally there are no time limitations but asked people to stay on topic
and not be repetitive or you will be interrupted. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Bruce and Doug Brittain addressed the Board regarding the realignment of Cradit Farm Rd.
and went through a handout detailing the timeline of the approvals and issuance of certificates of
occupancy and other issues they have with the way the Memorandum of Agreement was not
fulfilled and then discarded. They felt the Town Board usurped the Planning Board's authority
and the conditions set by the Planning Board should have been upheld.
Mr. Wilcox asked what they expect from this Board other than as a sounding board because we
have no enforcement powers. He said he looked at the letter from Supervisor Howe and Ms.
Holmes puts the matter to rest.
Mr. Bruce Brittain said he was concerned about the takeaway for Cornell in that they can now
think that the Planning Board can condition whatever they want, and they can go to the Town
Board and get it waived.
Mr. Wilcox said he would be happy to discuss this, but not tonight, as we are approaching 3
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 12
hours.
Yayoi Koizumi, Zero Waste Ithaca, addressed concerns about artificial turf and referenced the
multiple comments and documents that have been submitted regarding the turf. She spoke at
length about the supposed recycling of plastics and referred the Board to the peer-reviewed
studies and references submitted. She said the Board's decision will have far reaching
implications and urged them to not allow synthetic turf without a full environmental impact
statement.
Mr. Wilcox responded that the Board has received the written comments and read them.
Ms. Koizumi went on to say that we should not expose our young people and others to these
toxic chemicals and again referred to the studies and reports detailing the harm they cause. Mr.
Wilcox interrupted, saying that this Board has made a reasoned decision, and she can disagree
with that decision, but that doesn't make us wrong and stated that she had 30 seconds more.
Ms. Koizumi responded that she thought they were going to be allowed to speak without time
constraints. Mr. Wilcox responded that he also said he could interrupt, and this is not a public
hearing, but an opportunity to speak, and her purpose tonight seems to be to criticize us and he
gave her 30 more seconds to speak.
Ms. Koizumi continued, saying that another concern are the impacts on birds, regardless of what
the Lab of Ornithology has stated, there have been peer-reviewed studies on the harmful effect to
birds and wildlife....she was muted and Mr. Wilcox told her that her time was up.
Bethany Mays spoke, saying that she was disappointed that they were not allowed to speak prior
to the decision. She gave her credentials and spoke about her concerns about the Planning Board
relying heavily on the Haley and Aldridge consultants'report and the City heavily relied upon
the same report.
She felt that if public comments should be actively taken into account and cited in the public
Record and she was concerned that there has been a misperception on the part of some board
members that the public comments do not rely upon peer-reviewed scientific evidence and the
lack of discussion about microplastics shedding from these fields which is in addition to the
PFAS issue.
Ms. Mays then read a portion of the letter from Mr. Rossi and noted that the Haley Aldrige report
represents a conflict of interest. Their own bibliography states "his risk assessment has
the goal of quote using his results to negotiate better outcomes for his clients" and"known by his
clients for identifying alternative approaches for managing contamination that not only
better align with their end goals but often save them money end." ....
Mr. Wilcox muted the speaker and stated that the Board received her written comments,just like
we received comments from people in favor of the project. He reiterated that the Board may not
have publicly referenced her specific comments, but that didn't mean that they haven't been
distributed, read, and considered by members of the Planning Board.
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 13
Amina Mohamed spoke, saying that she is a CU PhD student in Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology. She spoke to natural fields being far better on avian biodiversity over artificial turf and
microplastic toxins. She also commented on the increased temperature generated by artificial
turf and concerns with climate change and adding forever chemicals to the environment. She felt
that Cornell's disregard for environmental responsibility is consistently disappointing and urged
the Board to prioritize a comprehensive environmental impact assessment for this project.
Anna G spoke, saying that she has studied artificial turf in depth this past year and she is a
parent of a sports player, so she is not anti-sports, but the information from these conferences and
research is very alarming. She expressed concerns about the consultants distorting the science
and just this night, the consultant said there are no PFAS and that PVDFs are inert and that there
is no turf that is recycled but of course there is. She noted that the study referenced by Mr.Arms
relied on a study that did not look at PFAS and was a sample study of convenience based on 13
kids that happened to be playing on the field for a few hours and they put a disclaimer on that
study. The EPA has just reduced the threshold and these consultants are misrepresenting science.
We are in a climate emergency and these petrochemicals are causing it and should not be
allowed.
Tracy Stewart,Medway, MA spoke, saying that they voted down a synthetic turf replacement
this past spring and she has led the fight against synthetic turf for more than 12 years. She quoted
Nancy Gilbert, Board of Health,Amherst,who said, "as a public healthy professional, I rely on
the precautionary principle ... if a product is suspected of a risk to public health,proactive action
should be taken even before there is scientific proof of that risk." She said that firefighters in
Nantucket said no to artificial turf in their community after finding that their protective suits
contain high levels of PFAS and there are lawsuits happening against the manufacturers of them.
She highlighted various projects in MA that have been cancelled and noted that recycling doesn't
happen and there is a dangerous pileup of artificial turf and dumping grounds in Philadelphia.
Eliza Solamon, former student and now resident, stated that she had been one of three students
attending in person this evening expecting to speak after the presentation, but her companion had
to leave for work, so she was now on zoom. She stated that the system of leaving public
comments till the end is frankly undemocratic and may serve to chill speech which I think we've
all seen this week from the Supreme Court how quickly that can lead to silencing and frankly
fascism so Pm disappointed that that is the practice. Ms. Solamon went on to say that for the past
4 years she has experienced near constant construction projects fumes and debris at Cornell as
they modernize to appeal to students and donors under the guise of sustainability. Both the
Town and City of Ithaca and Cornell have ongoing commitments to sustainability and the
architect behind this project touts their sustainability efforts,yet when it comes to these artificial
fields,they are not holding to them. She echoed the other comments regarding health threats to
athletes and the environment shown in peer-reviewed studies, communities across the country
considering legislation to ban artificial turf, and approving this use is anti-science and anti-
human. She said she was at a loss for words if we have resorted to"it's not illegal" as a basis for
allowing this.
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 14
Jessica spoke, saying there is PFAS in all artificial turf, and she hoped the Board follows the
science and doesn't listen to the person tonight who said that it came from the rain and she
encouraged the Board to read and talk to experts. She noted that 3M DuPont are currently in
litigation about PFAS and the scientist whose research has been covered up by them and who did
a study showing what PFAS does to the system and every rat died. Microplastics are ending up
in our bodies with links to adverse health effects and it is clear we are living in a time where we
must commit to less PFAS. She said the fieldhouse is a really beautiful building and a stunning
design,but the issue is the artificial turf and she read from the Fisher Associates website, words
about their commitment to sustainability, their deep understanding of environmental goals and
lessons learned to make our society more resilient and so forth and asked Ms. Michaels how
artificial turf and acres and acres of plastic grass is mindful of the human environment
relationship she touts or how it makes sense in a climate crisis. This is what you are telling
Cornell and Ithaca is right at this time.
Mr. Wilcox noted that Jessica was the last speaker and stated that the comments are appreciated.
The Planning Board made its decision with regard to the environmental review and our
comments to the City. Should the City complete its environmental review with a negative
declaration of environmental significance, then both the City and the Town Planning Boards will
consider site plan approval, and here they will have a special permit and there will be associated
public hearings.
He added that it has been his legacy for 30 years on this Planning Board not to have time limits
but given what I heard tonight, don't be surprised if there is a three minute time limit enforced for
future approvals since we have completed our environmental review and forwarded our
comments to the City. He noted that the public had at least two opportunities to speak on the
Meinig Fieldhouse project and there have been many written comments, so no one should say
that the public has not had a chance to be heard.
The meeting was adjourned at 1 Opm upon motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant;
unanimous.
Submit b
Paul a Rosa, T wn Clerk
PB 2024-07-02(Filed 08/08) Pg. 15