HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-05-21FILE
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE
TUESDAY, MAY 215 2002
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 21, 2002, in Town Hall,
215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Board Member; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:34); Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director
of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (8:03 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of
Planning (7:50 p.m.); Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering; Michael Smith, Environmental
Planner; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner,
EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Dan Walker, Director of
Engineering.
ALSO PRESENT: R.C. Quick, Brooktondale NY; Sally lacovelli, 602 King Rd W; John Rawlins, 127
Troy Road; John Yntema, 993 Danby Road; Orlando Turco, 142 Troy Road; R.R. Brainard, 113
Northview Road; William Goodhew, 674 Coddington Road; Joe Allen, 417 N. Cayuga Street; David
Harding, QPK Design; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; George Blanchard, 165 King Rd E; Tye Wolfe,
Ithaca Times; Ken Dunning, 10 La Grand Court; Marian Rogers, 152 Coddington Road; Jeff
Kirschman, 1005 Danby Road; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Designs.
Whairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:32 p.m. and accepted for the record the
Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on May 13, 2002, and May 15, 2002, together with the properties under discussion, as
appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 15, 2002. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is
hereto attached as Exhibit #1.)
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York
State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD:
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:33 p.m. With no persons present to be
heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Quick Four -Lot Subdivision, 1564 Slaterville Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
BoLw:od Member Mitrano- Do I have a potential :onflict of interest?
•
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we'll find out. Good evening. If I could have a quick name and address
we'll hear what you have to say.
Mr. Quick, 191 Landen Rd, Brooktondale — I'm asking for approval of a four -lot subdivision at 1564
Slaterville Rd tax parcel 56. -3 -26.2. It consists of four lots. One has a house and a barn, which has
been in my family for four generations. My mother has pasted away in late 2001, my brother and I
own the house and we want to sell it. So that's one of the reasons for the request of the subdivision.
have purchased the other land from my brother and will have plans for future developments or sale
down the road.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any environmental issues?
Mr. Quick — The topography on lot four is kind of steep and I think Christine noted some drainage
problems, but other than that, I don't think there are any environmental issues now.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions for the applicant with regard to the Environmental review?
Board Member Hoffmann — There is a history of problems with drainage in that area. It goes back to
the time when Eastern Heights was developed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. The Town has... I should introduce Craig Hebdon; he is the assistant town
engineer. Filling in for the town engineer. Welcome and thank you for coming. Can you provide a few
minutes of background on the drainage issues that have occurred in the approximate area? I said I'd
put you on the spot, didn't I?
Mr. Hebdon — The Town has just finished, as of last year, re -doing the entire Eastern Heights
drainage area. In particular, down Park Lane we put a brand new underground 24 inch pipe down
there to take all the flow that comes down through there. I hope it's going to work in the future, as
long as we don't get rains like we have. The topography is steep down through there; the pipe should
take anything the watershed brings down through it if we can get it in through the pipe.
Chairperson Wilcox — Could someone help me? Jonathan, I have the subdivision plot and there are
numerous arcs that sort of parallel Park Lane, do they have to do with the Town's drainage
easements around Park Lane? I'm talking about the dash lines.
Mr. Kanter — The dash lines for some reason, the surveyor put on the front yard set back line from
Park Lane. So it's very hard to see the writing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, there it is. Maximum set back 50 feet, minimum feet 25 feet.
Mr. Kanter — So I guess that's the Article 10 setback requirement, which is unusual, but actually it's
helpful. This surveyor probably went a little bit farther than most surveys that we see. It was a little
confusing because you have to look closely to see exactly where the Park Lane road right of way is,
is where the road itself is. You'll notice on that, right above the lettering, where it says Park Lane,
going up above that. That dark line really darts out, away from the road. That is where the Town
ended up, for whatever reasons to cut the road in to obtain that right of way from the Quick property.
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
So part of that whole Park Lane project involved, what I guess the Engineering Department likes to
call a "road cut" into the Quick property. Which is basically where that future road right -of -way is
shown. Which really, at this point primarily has also involved some additional drainage that we missed
in that area.
Mr. Hebdon — So far we haven't had any problems with anything coming across that cut going down
towards Rte 79. It's all been picked up and dropped down into the Park Lane system.
Mr. Kanter — That future road right -of —way was part of the intention of additional subdivision potential
on lot four and this survey map as well as the adjacent property to the east.
Chairperson Wilcox — So the Town owns that additional land right -of -way? Okay, I understand. Any
other questions in regard to the environmental review?
Mr. Quick — I should probably make one last point. On the sheet that I have, with the resolution a., b.
and c.: And be it further resolved that the Planning Board finds that there is no current need for and
park land or reservation created by this proposed subdivision and hereby waves the requirement for
any park land reservation as long as there is no further subdivision of the site. If lots are proposed to
be divided from lot four in the future, based on the individual size of the parcel. I don't know the
ramifications of this, but "June 25, 1986, re: Park Lane Extension, Town of Ithaca: Dear Mrs. Quick,
Enclosed, please find, at long last, the certified resolution of the Planning Board exempting any future
subdivisions of your land from the subdivisions regulations requirement of open space reservation."
Would you like a copy?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. New information. Bear with me just a second, if you would please.
Mr. Kanter — Actually, if our illustrious Town Attorney would arrive, I think he has a lot more
background on this whole project than any of us do.
Chairperson Wilcox — This is a letter signed by Larry Fabroni, as Town Engineer, on Town of Ithaca
stationary. "Whereas additional park land will not be needed in this area to serve the expected
population due to present zoning densities and demographic projections, Therefore, it is resolved
(inaudible) I want to show this to John first, and then I'll see if anyone from the Planning Board would
like to see it.
Mr. Kanter — Actually, why don't I run out and make some copies.
Chairperson Wilcox — We actually have to do two resolutions. We have to do an Environment Review
Resolution and then we'll do the subdivisions. So, while we're waiting to deal with that, I think we can
go ahead and do the Environmental Review, finish that. Then we'll open the Public Hearing, deal with
that. Then we'll deal with that specific issue.
Mr. Quick — Do you want me to keep standing here?
Chairperson Wilcox — No, you're welcome to sit down, but understand that the first resolution that we
deal with is just are there any environmental issues.
91
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann- In the discussion let me mention that I think that there are some
environmental concerns because of the very steep slopes. In the memo that we got from Christine
she mentions that part of the reason that one cannot, perhaps build out create as many lots here as
one would normally on this size parcel is because of the steep slopes. Those are environmental
concerns. I don't think I was on the Planning Board at this time. The resolution came up that we just
found out about tonight, but it could be that that has something to do with the fact that the density
cannot be as it would normally be on land that's zoned this way.
Chairperson Wilcox — I agree that further subdivision of lot four may be environmentally significant,
but I don't think that the given subdivision in front of us is one that, at least in my opinion would qualify
as having significant environmental impact. It may be environmentally significant, but I don't think that
the given subdivision, as put in front of us, is one that I think would qualify as having significant
environmental impact.
Board Member Hoffmann — No, I would agree with that.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -046 - SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Quick
South Four -Lot Subdivision, 1564 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
four -lot subdivision located at 1564 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2,
Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 9.228 +/- acre parcel into a 1.524 +/-
acre parcel which contains an existing house and barn, and three vacant parcels of 0.490 +/-
acres, 0.416 + / -, and 6.798 +/- acres. Raymond C. Quick, Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by
the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Quick South Subdivision, Lands of R. C. Quick,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by James Stockwin, Stockwin
Surveying, dated April 12, 2002, and other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
M
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an
Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed four -lot subdivision located at 1564 Slaterville Rd, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.-
3 -26.2, Residence District R -5. The proposal is to subdivide the 9.228 +/- acre parcel into a
1.524 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing house and barn, and three vacant parcels of
0.490 +/- acres, 0.416 +/- and 6.798 +/- acres. Raymond C. Quick, Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. With no persons present to be
heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to take care of a couple housekeeping items while we are waiting.
We do have the County's 239 Review, the General Municipal Review. They have recommended
modification of the proposal by adding a condition that access to lots one and two do not be permitted
off of Route 79. 1 believe the applicant has agreed with that condition and that has been incorporated
into the draft resolution and therefore, we will only need a majority vote. Not a majority plus one vote,
this evening. We have comments from DOT when we arrived this evening. From Tarla Arnold,
Assistant Engineer supporting that position of not placing addition curb cuts on Route 79. 1 also thank
the applicant for the letter from himself describing the project and from his brother. They were helpful.
All right, Jon, I'm going to look to you as the senior Town staff person sitting here right now. We have
a letter, it is on Town stationary and signed by Mr. Fabroni, representing the Town and it says no
additional parkland reservation has been required. It would be nice if John Barney, the Town attorney,
were here.
Mr. Kanter — Everything in that document is in order and would certainly lead to the conclusion that no
additional parkland was intended to be reserved on the property. It actually goes further than what Mr.
Quick said and it says that the dedication of the road right -of -way would substitute for parkland. The
only question that I have in my mind still is, and I'm assuming that is adopted and is a certified
resolution of the Planning Board, looking at this particular piece of paper I can't do that from a legal
perspective. I think what we can probably do is somehow adjust the wording in the resolution to
indicate that somehow upon confirming that the resolution made on April 1, 1986 was adopted. There
is a signature on here. There is a Deputy Town Clerk's signature so all evidence is that it was a
resolution that was adopted by the Board in final. If we can confirm that, we'd be all set. You might
want to just re -word it taking out this whole "this Board" and reflecting something more like what that
resolution says that "the Planning Board hereby confirms that there will be no additional need for park
61
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
land reservation as per the resolution date April 1, 1986, subject to confirmation that that was an
adopted and filed resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — I suspect that the issue is that the Town seal is not affixed to that letter. Is that
the only issue?
Mr. Kanter — Right and we have an official certified resolution book. If you wanted to, we could check
that before the end of the meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox — There is a seal on that one? Okay.
Mr. Kanter — Again, that kind of wording of the resolution simply would indicate that, as I'm sure John
Barney would say.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think that that's reasonable by referencing that to that resolution.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -047 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Quick South
Four -Lot Subdivision 1564 Slaterville Road Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
four -lot subdivision located at 1564 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2,
Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 9.228 +/- acre parcel into a 1.524 +/-
acre parcel which contains an existing house and barn, and three vacant parcels of 0.490 +/-
acres, 0.416 + / -, and 6.798 +/- acres. Raymond C. Quick, Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on May 21, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part
II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a survey map entitled "Quick South Subdivision, Lands of R. C. Quick, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by James Stockwin, Stockwin Surveying,
dated April 12, 2002, and other application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
101
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed four -lot subdivision at 1564 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3-
26.2, as shown on a survey map entitled " Quick South Subdivision, Lands of R.C. Quick,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by James Stockwin, Stockwin
Surveying, dated April 12, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
a. Submission of an easement for purposes of having a shared driveway to serve Lots 1
and 2, located on the existing dirt drive off of Park Lane in the area shown on the survey
plat as "future road location," for review and approval by the Town Attorney prior to
signing of the plat by the Planning Board chair,
b. Lots 1 and 2 shall not have future curb cuts located on Slaterville Road /State Route 79.
Access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be provided via a common driveway or future road from
Park Lane, and
C. Submission of one mylar and two additional dark line prints of the approved subdivision
plat, all signed and sealed by the licensed surveyor who prepared the survey, for
signing by the Planning Board Chair.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby reaffirms its finding in its resolution dated April 1, 1986 that
the dedication of the Park Lane Extension right -of -way was an appropriate contribution to the town in
lieu of parkland with respect to the Tax Parcel No. 56. -3 -26.2, and that no additional open space or
parkland reservation or dedication shall be required by this Board for this current subdivision
approval, nor shall any additional parkland reservation be required for any future subdivision of the
remaining lands (i.e., Lot 4) in this subdivision.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Meldrum Five -Lot Subdivision, 142 Troy Rd
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Joe Allen, 417 N. Cayuga St- The Meldrum's, my clients, inherited this piece of property from an
uncle about a year ago and they have long since moved to Florida and were interested in selling it.
They weren't particularly successful in trying to sell the whole lot because of its size and
configuration. With the aid of Orlando Turco were able to come up with a reasonable way of dividing it
and selling it in parcels. They requested that I assist them in getting your approval for doing that. You
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
can see, no environmental impact in the way that it has been divided. Each lot is of substantial
acreage. The smallest being approximately two acres.
Board Member Mitrano — Is this the parcel that has the old, abandoned house on it.
Mr. Allen — Yes, ma'am, one of them.
Board Member Mitrano — That's what I thought. How old is that house?
Mr. Allen — I haven't the slightest idea. It's fallen down and I've told my clients either to have it
removed or sell it to someone who wants to try and do something with it. It's a bit of a liability.
Board Member Mitrano — Nowadays. It was a beautiful home, I bet. Historically, I'm curious as to how
old it is.
Mr. Allen — When the old fellow was living there, even then the roof leaked. They tell me when he
finally passed away he had a little isolated corner where he lived.
Chairperson Wilcox — 1886.
Board Member Mitrano — 1886, that was a few years ago.
Chairperson Wilcox — Built by John Troy. I assume to have something to do with the fact that it's Troy
Road, given the amount of land.
Mr. Kanter — As noted in the environmental review, this was one of the properties that was surveyed
by the Cornell Historic Preservation class that's doing the Town survey and they did inventory and the
evidence from that survey is that it is an old house, it's not in very good shape and there aren't really
any significant features to the house that indicate significance. But it is an interesting old one.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let's talk about the lay of the land, just briefly. Proposed parcel two has a
stream running through it. It is a seven + acre parcel. Proposed parcel four borders the unique natural
area — South Hill Swamp.
Ms. Ritter — It's in the northwest corner of the parcel.
Chairperson Wilcox — Also, I believe it has a stream running through it.
Ms. Ritter — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — But again, it is nearly a thirteen -acre parcel. It would have room for a buildable
lot.
Ms. Ritter — At least one.
E:3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — We do have some issues with rights of way for overhead telephone lines and
things like that.
Board Member Mitrano — Do you think they may ever bury those?
Mr. Kanter — They're high voltage lines and there is no way you could bury them.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Discussion with regard to environmental review?
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -048 - SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Meldrum
5 -Lot Subdivision 142 Troy Road Tax Parcel Nos. 44 -1 -5.2 and 49 -1 -26
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
five -lot subdivision located at 142 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 44 -1 -5.2 and
49 -1 -26, Residence Districts R -15 and R -30 respectively. The proposal is to subdivide the
14.985 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 44- 1 -5.2) into a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an
existing house and a 12.985 +/- acre parcel which is vacant, and to subdivide the 80.418 +/-
acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49 -1 -26) into three vacant parcels of 7.156 +/- acres, 3.889 +/-
acres, and 69.373 +/- acres. William F. Meldrum and Betty Jane C. Meldrum, Owners; Joseph
W. Allen, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by
the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Survey for William and Elizabeth Meldrum,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by Scott Edsall, Williams and
Edsall Land Surveyors, dated April 18, 2002, and other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an
Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
we
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed five -lot subdivision located at 142 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 44. -1-
5.2 and 49. -1 -26, Residence Districts R -15 and R -30 respectively. The proposal is to subdivide
the 14.985 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel no. 44.- 1 -5.2) into a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an
existing house and a 12.985 +/- acre parcel which is vacant, and to subdivide the 80.418 +/-
acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49. -1 -26) into three vacant parcels of 7.156 +/- acres, 3.889 +/-
acres, and 69.373 +/- acres. William F. Meldrum and Betty Jane C. Meldrum, Owners; Joseph
W. Allen, agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before I ask the public to speak, Jonathan, I noticed in the materials that we
received that the Notice of Public Hearing for this particular application was re- published and I
compared the two and didn't see a difference.
Mr. Kanter — Well, the original one that you got wasn't the one that went in the paper. That's why we
had to do a corrected notice. The main difference was the reflection of the two different zoning
districts that apply to the property.
Chairperson Wilcox- R -30 on one side R -15 on the other side. Okay, so we're all set in terms that we
got the correct hearing in the paper?
Mr. Kanter —Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, very good.
Sally lacovelli, 602 West King Rd — We put in a purchase offer for the 12.98 parcel, which we are
planning to build on, a single story residence. We don't plan to subdivide again, although you never
know with that my land, we may do it. We don't think so.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would any body else like to address the Board this evening?
Bill Goodhew, 674 Coddington Rd- Which is a tandem parcel to the 49. -1 -26 parcel, my parcel
number is 17.2. 1 know that my survey is different in pinpoints then what they have stated on their
survey by numbers of feet. They're asking for total acreage that does not coincide with what I see in
the public display in amounts of acreage. In fact, I find it to be quite drastically different. At the 49. -1-
26, the Town has a record of it being 74.36 acres and I believe what they're asking to split here
tonight represents that parcel as being 80.4 acres. The parcel across the street, 44- 1 -5.2, the Town
has 13.95 acres. I believe they're representing that as more like 14.9 acres. I know that the pin
measures on my back lot vary enough to amount to 6/10 of an acre difference out of my lot by their
IM
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
survey. My survey has been recorded three different times since 1994 and those measures have not
changed.
Chairperson Wilcox- If I may ask a question, has this been an on -going issue over the years?
Mr. Goodhew — No, it has not been. It became a discovery because I was interested in buying this
larger parcel last year when it first came up for sale. The Meldrum's, at that time, did not have a
survey and they could not tell me where all the pins lay out on that parcel. I'm interested in buying
that canyon piece and they were not interested in splitting it at that time in any manner. We talked
over a period of about three weeks and they finally got a survey done and I was the first person to
see that survey and walk the property. In doing that, I noted that the pin measures against my
property were inaccurate. I looked at pin measures that were displayed in the Town's records on
parcels to that acreage, the 74 acres that is recorded by the Town the 49. -1 -26. There were several
other parcels you said that had different measures on their pin measures. As recorded here, on the
Town's Map it is different.
Chairperson Wilcox — Last time your property was surveyed?
Mr. Goodhew — The last time my property was surveyed was 1997.
Mr. Kanter — could I just ask, when you're referring to the display maps that the Town has, are you
referring to the tax maps?
Mr. Goodhew — yes I am.
Mr. Kanter — Because the tax maps, you really can necessarily go by.
Mr. Goodhew — I understand that. However, my point is that this tax map displays, accurately, the
measures on my property that are displayed on my survey. I cannot attest to the accuracy of other
survey on tangent parcels down the street from me, but I know that mine are accurate in
representation.
Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome Mr. Barney. We wished you were here for the first one and we are
glad you are here for the second one. In all my years sitting on this Board, this is the first time this has
ever come up.
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't remember it happening before either.
Chairperson Wilcox — I assume that Jonathan has briefed you.
Mr. Barney — He tried. What is the issue?
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is that the owner of this parcel here, Mr. Goodhew, says that he has
we believe a 1997 survey, which shows the boundary lines between this property and the Meldrum
property being in a different location. There is some dispute about either that line, it could be just the
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
line that boarders Mr. Goodhew or it could be the line as it extends to Murray property for example to
the southeast. I've never encountered this before.
Mr. Barney — How much of a variance are we talking about?
Mr. Goodhew — 6/10 of an acre of my parcel 12.36. Pin measure variances are ... my survey records
them as 314 feet on one leg theirs is 288 feet. Mine on the longer leg is 963.87 feet. They have theirs
stated at 956 feet.
Mr. Barney- And that compares to what on this survey?
Mr. Goodhew — Mine is 963 and theirs is 956.
Mr. Barney — 963, so there is about a 13 -foot difference.
Mr. Goodhew — And that longer leg, would be 8 feet of difference in that. In the short leg is 288 feet
on theirs and mine is 314. So that's more like 36.
Chairperson Wilcox — That would be the common boundary to the northwest.
Mr. Barney — Who did your survey?
Mr. Goodhew — I believe its Miller.
Mr. Barney — T.G. Miller? Did you bring your survey tonight?
Mr. Goodhew — I did not bring my survey.
Mr. Kanter — But your survey was recorded in the Courthouse?
Mr. Goodhew- Yes.
Mr. Barney — Did the surveyor sign this survey on the original?
Ms. Ritter — Yes, the small copy is not signed, but the large copy is signed.
Mr. Kanter — He signed the large copies.
Mr. Barney — What is the urgency with respect to this subdivision process?
Mr. Allen — Well, we've got outstanding contracts that are close to expiration dates. Those lots under
contract are 4, 5 and 3.
Mr. Barney — None of those would affect Mr. Goodhew's lot?
I�I�GIICai�►C:iiiifT� u . � . - .
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Barney — What's the timing on these? The ones that you have under contract.
Mr. Allen — June 1S`
Mr. Barney — I don't know what the Board's feeling on the subdivision in general is, but what I suggest
you might consider doing is approving the subdivision of lots — the ones that are under contract 4, 3
and 5. Postpone the decision on parcel 1 until there such time that there has been an opportunity to
have the surveyors talk to each other and hopefully come up with an agreed upon lot.
Mr. Barney — Yea, whatever the ones, 2, 3 and 4, is that right?
Mr. Goodhew — Yea, 2, 3 and 4.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, I thought I heard 3, 4, and 5.
Mr. Allen — Well, if agreeable, I would say 2,3,4 and 5.
Mr. Barney — I would just assume reserve on it as much as we can, but, on the other hand, not hold
you up in a situation where you've got a contract that you want to get taken care of. So I would say 3,
4 and 5 and adjourn this until a month or whatever it takes to get the two surveyors to hopefully agree
upon a line. If they don't, then we've got to bring in a surveyor. Once we have notice of a problem, we
need to resolve it in some fashion. Quite frankly, this may be a very capable surveyor, but it's not
anybody I've ever heard of. If it was flipped and this was a Miller survey and somebody else had this
one....
Mr. Allen — I guess I'm not going to object, although I would question what the relevancy of that is to
the subdivision because that's got to be dealt with anyhow.
Mr. Barney — Sure, but we're being asked to prove parcel 1 as shown on this map and apparently
there is some discrepancy as to whether the boundary along Mr. Goodhew's line is accurately
portrait.
Mr. Allen — I don't know. I don't know where Mr. Goodhew got his numbers. I know that earlier, he
showed me a tax map, but you and I both know that they are not accurate.
Mr. Barney — That's correct. It may very well be that what should happen is Mr. Goodhew bring his
map down here for the Planning Department to look at and check whether the dimensions are
variance from what we have here.
Chairperson Wilcox — I believe you would think it would be reasonable to us that we seem to have
credible information that there is a dispute on part of this.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to double check with Mr. Goodhew. I believe he may have
said something about the other lots being a little different in size, too.
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to need to ask you to come back to the microphone sir. For the
audience's sake, we record these.
Mr. Goodhew — In my perusal of that survey, it was done last September and what I could see on the
recorded tax map parcels, were that there were different pin measures respective to what the pin
measures were on the survey that was done at that time. Since tonight, they said that they had a
second survey done. I don't know when that was done. If there has been a second survey since that
time, I have not seen it. However, what they have represented here tonight, as respective to my
survey measures, they are still inaccurate.
Board Member Hoffmann — And it's not just for lot 1 ?
Mr. Goodhew — No, there were at least four inaccuracies that I noted and there were two large
amounts. At least a half an acre off another parcels. I can't tell you exactly where those were. I sent
that survey back to the Meldrums with a letter attached that stated to them that they have problems, I
believed, with their survey. At that time, I had not spoken with anybody about that. I have my original
copy of that letter with me here tonight that was sent on the 15ht of September. I have not heard word
one back from them about this.
Mr. Kanter — Do you have copies of the letters that you sent them with the information that might help.
Nr. Goodhew — What I did, because it was their survey, I noted in tagging, I circled the areas where
there were discrepancies. I believe what I had done was to send them copies of the Town parcels, tax
maps, circled on that, and on their survey and return the survey to them as well.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did you send them copies of your survey?
Mr. Goodhew — Did I send them copies of my survey? Not my actual survey. I sent them the Town
map, which is, in my case an accurate representation of my survey.
Chairperson Wilcox — But it is not the official....
Mr. Goodhew — I understand.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Mr. Goodhew — I was not going to send them my survey.
Chairperson Wilcox — Or a copy of it.
Mr. Goodhew — They did not ask for my survey. They did not communicate with me at any further
date.
Chairperson Wilcox — There are two, I'll use the term "line segments" if you will, that are common
between you property and the proposed parcel 1 as subdivided. You have represented that you have
14
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
a survey by T.G. Miller that shows different, either meets or bounds or segment lengths. Do you
reason to believe that any other portion of the survey of the two existing parcels is incorrect?
Board Member Hoffmann — I believe that's what I heard Mr. Goodhew say.
Mr. Goodhew — I cannot verify information on that. I did not approach my neighbors about their
surveys. What I say was based on the tax map parcels displayed.
Board Member Hoffmann — The reason I raise this again is because in case there is a question about
any of the other parcels, maybe it's better to hold off an all of them until we know for sure that the
survey is correct for each of the parcels.
Mr. Barney — Of course the Board can do whatever they choose. My concern with that is that the only
survey that you have with you here tonight is the one that the applicant has presented. We have a
statement by a gentleman that says it is inaccurate. And he claims to have a survey that shows
something different on one lot, but we haven't seen that survey yet, so we're basically taking that at
his word. We can basically deal with that, I think, by simply not approving the subdivision with respect
to that lot. The variances between tax maps happen all the time. Quite frankly, the tax map people
are very careful to put a little note on that these maps are not to be used in conveyancy purposes
because they may not be accurate. In the absence of some kind of clear proof that the survey is
inaccurate in that area, I am not sure that that's a basis for holding these folks up.
Chairperson Wilcox — Who has the large map? It is signed by the surveyor?
Mr. Barney — It is signed by the surveyor.
Chairperson Wilcox — And he has made a representation to the Meldrums or other agents?
Mr. Barney — The usual.
Mr. Kanter — One thing that might help also is that parcels 3 and 4, on the west side of Troy Road are
already a separate tax parcel, which to me implies that there is already a separate deed for that
parcel. Is that correct?
Mr. Allen — Well, in the deed it described as a separate parcel because they were interested in buying
it separate.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Goodhew, I thank you. You may have a seat. Is there anybody else this
evening who wishes to address the Planning Board on this particular item?
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Board Member Howe — I'm comfortable moving forward on 3, 4 and 5.
Chairperson Wilcox — Where 3 and 4 are a subdivision of 44. -1 -5.2 and five could be subdivided
through 49. -1 -26.
15
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter — My only technical question, maybe for John Barney is how — the resolution may address
that- but how do we have the Planning Board share a plot for filing.
Mr. Barney — Specifically on a plot that's approved for lots 3, 4 and 5.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think it would be inappropriate for the applicant to have to file a new
application at some future point in time to have to finalize any further subdivisions, such as parcel 2
from the existing tax parcel 49. -1 -26 and should the resolution address that as well, the Planning
Board would consider further subdivision once the dispute is resolved.
Mr. Barney — Yes, I think what I would suggest is that the approval, if you approve it, be for lots 3, 4
and 5, adjourning the issue of approval with respect to parcels 1 and 2 until there is an opportunity to
review the information that Mr. Goodhew has presented about the survey.
Chairperson Wilcox — What would happen if - and we've done so many subdivisions, maybe it has
already happened- what if we approve the subdivision, let's say of parcel 2 in the southern end of the
lot. Let's say a neighbor down there has an issue of the boundaries shown, then that becomes a
matter between those two lot owners to resolve the dispute at that point.
Mr. Barney — If you're approved it.
Chairperson Wilcox — If we've approved it. Because we've made a determination based upon the
surveyor, who has signed and certified as we always do.
Mr. Kanter — Also, just to follow up on that, what would have happened if parcels 1,2 and 5 were not
discussed for subdivision and just that whole plot of land, which is a separate tax parcel was going to
be conveyed to somebody without having to come into the Town for approval.
Chairperson Wilcox — We would never see it. It would be conveyed and filed.
Mr. Kanter — For informational purposes, what happens in this kind of situation?
Mr. Barney — That's what lawyers are for. You bring a lawsuit. If you can't resolve it between the two
landowners, it's a question of getting a panel of surveyors and whoever is more credible usually
prevails. Knowing we have a problem, what we're trying to do here is strike a balance between the
need of the applicant and the fact that we have a survey map that has now been called into question.
I think that dealing with the lots on a need to convey takes care of each problem and gives you an
opportunity to review the map without speculating.
Board Member Conneman- My view would be that whatever we pass should not take away Mr.
Goodhews rights, whatever that means.
Mr. Barney — You're not doing that anyway. Ultimately, it's a decision for the judge to make.
IN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Here's what I'm concerned about John and address it if you would, please. By
approving the subdivision of parcel 5, which is the smaller one to the north and that would be
subdivided from tax parcel 49. -1 -26, which is on the east side of Troy Road. Approval and therefore
subsequent filing of that subdivision, does that not make the boundaries of the rest of 49. -1 -26 for
parcel 1, doesn't that give it some authoritative backing by the fact that the surveyor has surveyed
and signed it and certified it? How do we deal with the fact that this will be filed to indicate that this
subdivision is here? How do we indicate that this is not part of the subdivision?
Mr. Barney — Just by indicating that you are approving the subdivision of lots 3,4 and 5 only.
Whatever you do tonight isn't going to change the legal consequences of a line that has been drawn
by two different surveyors. That's go to be resolved by the property owners, ultimately. All I'm
suggesting is that you don't want to approve it when it's clearly under suspicion without at least a
further investigation before you make that determination.
Chairperson Wilcox — So the surveyor would have to put some sort of additional text on the survey
map before they file it.
Mr. Barney — Well, you will put the text where it says you are approved by Chair of the Planning
Board, it will say "as to lots 3, 4 and 5 only." The filed one will relate only to those three lots.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I put that on when I sign it.
Mr. Kanter — That leaves the question of what would the Board expect to see when it comes back for
that final additional approval of those two remaining lots. What kind of evidence would be needed?
Because what will happen, I'm sure, is this surveyor will simply say, "yes, I'm correct" and it will be
certified.
Mr. Barney — That's not necessarily true. That's why I want to take a little bit of time. If theoretically
that's what you incur, I'll give you a theoretical answer in theory when that happens. But right now I'm
hopeful that the two surveyors will, as they quite frequently do, communicate with each other and say
"hey, your 288 feet is wrong" and resolve it. If it isn't resolved, then you basically accept the
certification of the surveyor of the sub divider who's coming in at that point, unless you have
unequivocal evidence that that is wrong. If you have a dispute between two surveyors, I'm not
suggesting that that is unequivocal clear evidence because one is wrong and one is right. That's a
bridge I'd prefer to cross, if we have to, the hope is that there is a representative from Mr. Miller's
office here and the surveyor from the attorney for the sub divider's here. This bridge will hopefully not
be one that we will have to cross.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are we comfortable with proceeding.
Board Member Mitrano — Hey John, for recording, is New York first recording.
Mr. Barney —Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can someone put that in English for me?
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Barney — Well, first of record means if you have a document, the typical example is if I give you a
deed then I turn around and give Eva a deed a day later, but Eva gets to the Courthouse and records
her deed before you do then she basically gets title superior to yours unless she knew of the fact that
I had given you a deed.
Board Member Conneman- So Mr. Goodhew has to get an attorney now, just because someone else
is wrong, if he's right. Is that right?
Mr. Barney — Well, I would not want to advise anybody not to get an attorney. But generally speaking,
the fact that a subdivision map get filed with a boundary line shown different than what your deed or
your document says, does not create a right in and of itself to take away land from you that is
otherwise owed to you. Now, if there's a dispute a resolution would be involved, either a resolution
amicably or a resolution by the intervention of the court. But the filing of a subdivision map is not
going to change that situation.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -049 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Meldrum 5 -Lot
Subdivision 142 Troy Road Tax Board, May 21, 2002
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
five -lot subdivision located at 142 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 44 -1 -5.2 and
49 -1 -26, Residence Districts R -15 and R -30 respectively. The proposal is to subdivide the
14.985 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 44- 1 -5.2) into a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an
existing house and a 12.985 +/- acre parcel which is vacant, and to subdivide the 80.418 +/-
acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49 -1 -26) into three vacant parcels of 7.156 +/- acres, 3.889 +/-
acres, and 69.373 +/- acres. William F. Meldrum and Betty Jane C. Meldrum, Owners; Joseph
W. Allen, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on May 21, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part
II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a survey map entitled "Survey for William and Elizabeth Meldrum, Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by Scott Edsall, Williams and Edsall Land
Surveyors, dated April 18, 2002, and other application materials, and
4. A question was raised at the public hearing relative to the boundary line along the east side of
parcel 1 shown on the preliminary plat.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
IiR]
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists,
for Parcels 3, 4 and 5 only, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies
enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Parcels
3, 4 and 5 only of the proposed five -lot subdivision at 142 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel Nos. 44 -1 -5.2 and 49 -1 -26, as shown on a survey map entitled "Survey for William and
Elizabeth Meldrum, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by Scott
Edsall, Williams and Edsall Land Surveyors, dated April 18, 2002, subject to the following
conditions:
a. Submission of one mylar of the approved subdivision plat, signed and sealed by the
licensed surveyor who prepared the survey, for signing by the Planning Board Chair, such
signing to be limited to approval of Parcels 3, 4 and 5 only.
3. The Board hereby adjourns the application in so far as it relates to Parcels 1 and 2 pending
receipt of additional information as to the accuracy of the boundary line of Parcel 1.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board finds that there is no current need for any parkland reservation created by
this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any parkland reservation, as long
as there is no further subdivision of the subject site. If lots are proposed to be subdivided from Parcel
5 land in the future, then the Planning Board reserves the right to consider the reservation of
parkland, or fees in lieu thereof, based on the size of each of the individual parcels.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Goodhew, thank you very much for coming. Ladies and gentlemen, we're
running behind and we've got a long meeting, so let's wrap it up quickly.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with
respect to a request for Special Approval for the proposal to fill and grade up to 22,000 cubic
yards of material on a 2.0 +/- acre site located on the Ithaca College campus at the southwest
corner of Coddington Road and Main Campus Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41. -1 -26
and 41. -1 -25, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to utilize 22,000 +/- cubic yards of
excavation material from College Circle Apartments project via truck to the Ithaca College
location. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent.
Wel
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, I will point out that the Planning Board this evening is making a
recommendation to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board will be the lead agency for the
environmental review.
David Harding, QPK Design, 450 S. Salina St, Syracuse — The project, as summarized there is
specifically being proposed to you to address the disposal of the building generated by the College
Circle Apartments project. There was a need identified in the vicinity of this project site to make some
aesthetic improvements. This is one of the primary entrances to the campus. It has some abrupt and
steep and unnatural grades and it has a existing grange channel swale that has eroded over the
years and is rather unsightly and the college saw this as an opportunity to dress up this area of the
campus, as well as provide a site for this 22,000 cubic yards of fill. What we're proposing to do, as is
illustrated in the cross section drawn through here is where the grade drops off abruptly from building
25, is to terrace that out a little bit and create a more naturalized rounded landscape. It does involve
the removal of slightly less than a half -acre of leaves and brush. The finished appearance of this
project will be a maintained lawn with some focal plantings.
One of the issues that have come up through the discussions is what would be the haul route to bring
the material over from College Circle Apartments over to this site. The shortest distance and the
distance that is being advocated by both the College and the developers of the College Circle site is
to bring the material down 96B, to Coddington Rd and then up Coddington Rd and utilize the
driveway curb cut on the County Rd to access the site. Some of the environmental issues that are
addressed by the design would include erosion, since it is already a moderate to steep site we would
need to install a fence around its entire perimeter. We've indicated a topsoil stockpile area where that
would be stabilized while the filing operations went on. We anticipate the filling operations to occur
over a two to three month period, depending on the progress of the contractor on the College Circle
project. The objective is to have this site buttoned up by the fall time so that it will be re- vegetated and
stabilized before the onset of winter. I think that's all I have to say. If you have any questions, I'd be
happy to answer them.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'll start. I live in that vicinity. Tom Salm, you're back there some place. Do you
know when the house was taken down?
Mr. Salm — About a year ago.
Chairperson Wilcox — This was an Ithaca College party house, for lack of a better word. Owned by
Ithaca College and the fact that the house is no longer there is good. I must point out that Ithaca
College and their agents are at a disadvantage today because the come after the significant rains that
we had last Monday and there was a new stream flowing through that parcel on Monday afternoon as
drove by on my way home. It's unsightly; it has steep slopes up near building 25. 22,000 cubic yards
of dirt is a lot of fill, but it's got to go somewhere. I also concur with the recommendation that the fill be
moved on state and county roads rather than along the internal Ithaca College roads, which would
include along the to -be -built connector road, which doesn't exist at this point. Anybody else?
11]
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I have a question right off about the Public Hearing Notice where it
said, and the resolution, where it said it's a proposal to fill and grade up to 22,000 cubic yards of
material and it says the proposal is to utilize the 22,000 cubic yards of excavate material from the
Collage Circle Apartments project. In the papers that we received there is one letter from you, Mr.
Harding to Mr. Walker, dated April 10th. It says, " The College intends to utilize the excess material
from the College Circle Apartments project to satisfy this need, should the contractor for that project
wish to utilize this site." There is a similar segment in another paper titled "Ithaca College Building 25
Grading Improvement, Should the Contractor for that Project elect to utilize this Site ". So it sounds as
if it may not come from College Circle, but it may come from elsewhere.
Mr. Harding — Well, that's exactly the point I tried to make. The College has no intent to find 22,000
cubic yards somewhere else to accomplish this project. This is being proposed specifically to
accommodate the 22,000 yards from the College Circle project.
Board Member Hoffmann — Do I read that wrong then? Did anybody else read it the way I did?
Mr. Harding- Well, let me explain the wording on that. That was that in the process of bidding the
College Circle Apartment project, we did not want to mandate to the contractor or the bidders for that
project that they had to use this site. If they had any other site that was more convenient and it would
cost less for them to utilize, that was an option. Since the time that that was written, there have been
discussions with various contractors who were bidding this and it is my understanding that all of them
are interested in utilizing this site.
Chairperson Wilcox — So you are representing that the project, if completed, the fill would come from
the College Circle sites. If the contractors working on the College Circle decide that they wish to
dispose of the fill some place else, then you might have approval for this project, but the project may
not be built.
Mr. Harding — It's you prerogative to make a condition of this approval that if it only be allowed to
occur if it utilizes the College Circle material.
Chairperson Wilcox — Or recommend to the Zoning Board that they...
Board Member Hoffmann — Because it does make a difference when one thinks about the traffic
patterns and the only traffic patterns that we have discussed are the ones that involve using this site
for placing the fill. We haven't seen any alternatives mentioned of where the trucks might go.
Mr. Harding — And again, until such time that a contractor is awarded the contract and he decides
where he wants to dispose the material, IAD cannot submit the truck routing plan that you require as
condition of that approval because we don't know until the contractor decides. That will be several
weeks' time until I understand that we have that.
Board Member Hoffmann — So that leaves part of this approval very open ended.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which one? Which part?
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — The part about where the trucks are going to go and what the impact of
that traffic will be.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we can, as part of our recommendation recommend a specific routing of
the trucks from College Circle to the site. We can make that recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Or, we can, as David said, we can recommend that the project can only proceed with fill that
comes from the College Circle property. Again, we can recommend. I've sort of written those two
down.
Mr. Harding- Neither one of those recommendations is adverse to what the College would like.
Tom Salm, Ithaca College — The intent of all this was to try and make it easy for all parties. We had,
as you well described, an ugly situation beside yard 25 and we're talking about where we might be
able to put this fill and it seemed to come together as a good combination of a good use of the fill by
the College. In a sense, we don't care. The idea of saying you make this specifically "this fill from that
sight goes to yard 25" is fine by us, okay? It's my understanding that if there is still an approval, this is
only an approval to put the dirt there so to speak. If the College Circle contractor decides to go
elsewhere, it still owes you some sort of an obligation to say what route it's going follow. It's a fill
project and you have to approve that fill project. So, I have no problem saying that if you want to
make that restriction, it's fine.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Tom. Any other comments at this point? Dave, are you all set for
now? This is a Public Hearing this evening, if there is a member of the audience that wishes to
address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, as Mr. Yntema will soon do,
we ask you to please come to the microphone, we ask you to give your name and address and we'd
be very interested to hear what you have to say.
John Yntema, 993 Danby Rd — Please see attachment #1.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, John.
Mary Ann Rogers, 152 Coddington Rd — In the City of Ithaca, right on the City and Town line at
Hudson and Coddington. Our house is sort of in front of Ithaca College's land and adjacent to it. My
husband and I have several concerns, my main concern is about the traffic, the truck routing. Those
trucks would come down Coddington directly past our house and a number of other houses on
Coddington. From Rogan's Corner to our house, it's primarily residential. Most of the homes are right
on the road. We happen to live right at the stop sign. That means all of those trucks will be stopping
there. It's very noisy, I can say just from other trucks on a regular daily basis. That would be our
primary concern. I'm also curious, just in terms of the material that's going to be on the corner of the
Ithaca College land, whether it is going to be just primarily soil or whether it's going to contain other
construction debris. I know there's a fairly new parking lot that was serviced. It extended on top of
some construction debris from the Ithaca College building over the past couple of years. There was a
lot of other stuff being created other than just your normal. It's very wet back there and there is a fair
amount of runoff so we were concerned about what type of impact it might have over our land, which
lies down hill form there. I just wanted to bring to your attention that the residents, fairly close to
where the hill was going to be put in.
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Before you leave. I actually live up on South Hill, but I'm still confused. The
Town of Ithaca/ City of Ithaca boundary along the stretch of Coddington Road, between Hudson and
96B moves back and forth in the road because I know the Coddington Restaurant is in the Town.
Ms. Rogers — No, that is actually in the City.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, the Coddington Restaurant is in the City? Okay. So this construction
runs along behind the house. Thank you. Is there anybody else this evening who wishes to address
the Planning Board?
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, in any of the materials that you provided us or in the permits submitted
to the Town, you've stated that the fill material will come from the College Circle and what would that
material consist of?
Mr. Harding — My understanding is that the materials that are over there might include bedrock and
earth materials. It would not include any construction debris. It would all be associated with the
expansion of the site of the previously undeveloped area.
Chairperson Wilcox — Lots of shale?
Mr. Harding — That's what I hear.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Mr. Yntema referred to, well, he didn't refer to, but I would refer to
the May 13th memo from the environmental review committee of the Conservation Board. It primarily
addresses the Ithaca College proposal for the connector road but there is one sentence, there is one
paragraph in regard to the proposed movement of the fill, which states " Ithaca College has a
proposal for depositing 22,000 cubic feet in the northeast corner. Presumably, this fill will come from
the material excavated at College Circle. The obvious question arises; will some 2200 dump truck
trips be expected to occur each way in moving that material along the proposed connector road? The
home owners west of the connector road already have a major traffic flow in front of their homes
along Route 96B. Are they to expect another flow of heavy traffic behind their homes? The ERC
hopes that the dump truck traffic will not use the connector road." Mr. Yntema, are you a member of
the ERC?
IOTAW 1�'iM'iF m'[0
Chairperson Wilcox — That opinion heavily reflects your opinion, as well as others on the Board?
Mr. Yntema — Yes.
Board Member Conneman — During our these discussions we usually look into what times of the day
they would move this material. I think the proposed resolution in 8 to 5, but in our memo from Susan
Ritter, It says 8 to 5 or 6. Does that mean they may be going later?
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Ms. Ritter — It's up to you, what you thought. The construction itself is only going to occur from 8 to 5.
It's up to you whether you wanted to allow additional time for removal of materials. I put in the
resolution 5.
Chairperson Wilcox — The draft resolution does say 5 o'clock, yes.
Board Member Conneman — That was what we agreed upon when Kevin was here?
Ms. Ritter — When we discussed College Circle Apartments, that's right.
Board Member Conneman — I just wanted to be sure.
Board Member Hoffmann — Looking at the drawings of the slopes, and because you have just drawn
in the solid line at ten foot intervals for the new contour lines, you haven't drawn in the smaller lines in
between for each foot in the underlying drawings showing the slopes. It looks as if the slope is more
gradual, even in the part right above the driveway. But when I measure it out, the area of the new
slope, the proposed slope, that slope parallel to the drive, are actually going to be quite steep.
Especially, toward the ends where the, in that area there.
Mr. Harding — I think if you measure it, you'll find that there is 30 feet between each of those contours.
Board Member Hoffmann — I thought they were ten -foot contours. I see 835 at the solid line, and then
I see 845 at the solid line.
Mr. Harding — Right, they are ten foot contours and you'll just be measuring 30 feet distance between
each of those contours, which means that the three on each slope. The additional slope, which is
considered to be the maximum steepness for mowing. If you compare the distance to the darker lines
of the existing contours, you'll see that you are in fact right in noticing that those are much closer
together. Now, three on one slope are the steepest that we are proposing to make the grade here. As
you move away, over into that area, you'll see that the distance between the contours grows to; I
think 40 feet apart or perhaps 50 feet apart.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, I see that it's a more gradual slope over there. But the reason I'm
bringing it up is that, as I look at the slope, I see drifting slope along the driveway. There is some
erosion going on there. It looks like the new slope; just adjacent to it in the first two areas of contour
lining is going to be awfully steep. I'm concerned that there is going to be erosion there too.
Mr. Harding — We have stipulated that they feed and mulch it and repair any erosion that occurs.
Working from memory here, it's been some time since I prepared these plans, but I believe the slope
along the edge of the drive existing slope that you are speaking about being eroded, is steeper than
the other slope. We have discussed this with the College representatives; the comments that were
generated here and they are prepared to address that as an on -going annual maintenance operation
because they want to maintain an esthetically pleasing approach to the college campus.
24
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — One question I have of you, since I know you are a landscape designer,
is whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to put some other kind of vegetation there which would not
have to be mowed, first of all. Which is somewhat dangerous, even though the slope is apparently
acceptable for mowing. Some other vegetation which would also, perhaps hold the water in the
ground better.
Mr. Harding — There are a number of ground covers that could be used there. One of the difficulties
we find is that whenever you introduce a non- mowable ground cover that tends to collect trash. I'm
not sure how cleanly the students are at Ithaca College, but that could become a maintenance
burden. I would have to refer a response back to the College, because they are the ones that handle.
But one thing I will note is that, as you are aware, the College is in the process of developing a
master plan. They've been before this Board in the past. They've presented these preliminary findings
of that and one of the projects that was identified on that is to revise the entrance road as it comes in
the back entrance and loop it out further around. So there is an opportunity for that slope to go away.
Board Member Hoffmann — I missed the presentation. Could you just briefly say where that road
would be?
Tom Salm — (away from the microphone) we're going to bring this road down in this direction and
then around and connect it back up here with the idea of totally eliminating this road. (Inaudible)
Chairperson Wilcox — Is the removal of the house part of the beautification project? Thank you Tom.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, in general, I would like to see more plantings back on the slopes
than are proposed and I would like to see more shrubbery planted on the slope than grass, for the
reasons that I stated before on the steeper slopes. But also to make sure that it is not something that
stands out as a huge birm when seen from some distance, from other areas. Could you describe, a
little bit, the plantings? I see that on the drawing you have colored in some things that maybe aren't
so obvious from the drawing that we got.
Mr. Harding — Currently, there are existing trees that are hiding amongst some overgrown leaves and
brush. The trees that we are proposing... provide a little enclosure so that you are not seeing the
whole open space that we are creating. A few more trees might assist that a little bit, but as I say, the
primary focus is to establish the traditional institutional look with the occasional accent trees out in the
open lawn.
Board Member Hoffmann - How many new trees are you planting?
Mr. Harding - There are seven.
Board Member Hoffmann - Seven trees on a two -acre area is not very much. What do the rest of you
feel about these new trees?
Board Member Mitrano - Well, it is a lot of land. Either one thing or the other. Its either grass in the
way that it surrounds a lot of Ithaca College or you start to have a whole...
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Forest?
Board Member Mitrano - Yeah.
Board Member Hoffmann - The point about this area is that this is the area adjacent to the road in a
residential area. It seems to me it would be appropriate to have some wooded areas as buffers, as
well as have more trees and plants to make it not look like different from a distance. You know how
the Cornell Tennis Facility and the Polo Barns are visible from across the valley, well; this would be
visible from the other valley, too.
Board Member Mitrano - Wouldn't it look like what the front of the Ithaca College looks like?
Mr. Harding - That is essentially the effect that we were trying to create.
Board Member Conneman - Are the trees along Coddington?
Mr. Harding - They are up higher on the hill. You're in here. These trees along Coddington are
already kept to the limits of the fill work out beyond to preserve those trees. They maintain a little of
the buffer area.
Chairperson Wilcox - For the record, what is going around is a picture of the site taken one week ago
today. So they reflect the effects of the heavy rains and the flooding on that site last Monday.
Board Member Mitrano - And you don't have a similar situation looking like this on the front where you
have had grass grown for a number of years. In other words, this didn't happen because it is grass.
It happened because it isn't properly filled in. Is that true?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. That's the former house site I believe. That's where they tore down the
house and left the foundation exposed.
Board Member Mitrano - And what you are proposing is that this is going to look like your front door?
Mr. Harding - That is correct.
Board Member Mitrano - I'm okay with it. I usually always agree with you, but...
Board Member Howe - I happen to agree with Tracy on that, Eva. Normally, I agree with you that
more trees are better, but I am not opposed to the look he is trying to create here.
Mr. Hebdon - I'd just like to say that our office took those pictures and we took them the day after the
flooding. So there is some extra erosion in there than you would normally see. As you can see from
the pictures where the steep slope is, is where the water picked up a lot of speed. With this flattening
of the slope, it will actually help slow some of this water down. It will help us keep some control over
it down through there. We won't get the river lets that is running down through there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes, there was one there on Monday.
1401
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - But, the flattening out of the slope is in the area away from the road.
Closer to the road it looks to me like it is still going to be fairly steep.
Mr. Hebdon - Well, they are not changing the area by the road. They are leaving it the way it is at this
point. The water coming to it won't be coming in a concentrated form. It will be more of a sheet flow
over the whole area. That in itself will probably help keep that from eroding more down off of that
slope.
Mr. Harding - And, you're right. It is going to be fairly steep, but it is going to be plainer where as right
now we have the gully type of affect that starts in that woodland area. That is collecting area like a
bowl and shooting it right out down where those former ... were. So this project is evening it off and
dispersing it uniformly throughout the entire perimeter.
Board Member Hoffmann - There was something in the description about some underground pipe
being put in.
Mr. Harding - Yes. In fact I have a couple of pictures I can share with you. It does show the steep
slope in the road. That pipe goes around this side of the project area. There is currently a storm pipe
that is discharging out of the existing retaining wall up at the very top of the slope. There is
apparently some very substantial lines of water coming through that pipe to the extent that it has
eroded the swale down to what appears to be two to three feet and cause it to meander and become
an unattractive mess. So what we are proposing to do is connect a pipe at that point and convey the
water down to near the roadside scale along the entrance road and develop a gentle swale over the
top of it to pick up the local surface drainage. It will convey the water from a ... and I'm not quite sure if
it was the extent of source up on top of the hill. That water makes its way to an existing culvert under
the connector road and we are maintaining that same hydraulic connection. So we are not changing
anything about the drainage elsewhere on the site.
Board Member Hoffmann - There is something on the drawing a little bit to the right of that drainage
area you pointed to, about an inch to the right of one of your trees.
Mr. Harding - It is a sanitary sewer line.
Board Member Hoffmann - No. There is something that ends and it says, "daylight ".
Mr. Harding - You will notice that there is apparently a foundation drain from Building 25 that really
does not have a significant amount of water. It is meant solely to prevent moisture damage. That
currently sticks out of the embankment. We are quite simply extending it out to the limit of the
building and letting it stick out again. That is a six -inch diameter pipe and it will not be noticeable.
Board Member Hoffmann - And it's not the source of any more drainage?
Mr. Harding - No. It is merely a foundation drain.
27
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. We are being asked this evening to make a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, who will make the ultimate determination. In terms of the draft resolution,
the discussion of adding more plantings, but we've seemed to agree and the consensus of board is
that we won't recommend additional plantings. I get the feeling that there is an agreement that we
might want to stipulate or recommend that the project only proceed with fill from the College Circle
property. The issue of truck routing. I think there are actually three potential ways that trucks could
go from College Circle to this property. They can go through Ithaca College's own internal road
system, including that connector road or the current road. They could, as explained in Susan's
memo, they can go south on 96B and up King Road and down Troy Road and eventually to
Coddington, which would be longer than going north on 96B then onto Coddington Road. Does this
board wish to recommend a certain routing or leave that to the Zoning Board of Appeals? It is the
Zoning Board of Appeals' ultimate decision, but would we like to recommend a particular routing as
part of the resolution?
Board Member Mitrano - What about a distribution of all three?
Chairperson Wilcox - Inconvenient to everybody equally?
Board Member Mitrano - I'm not fond of number two.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not fond of any of them, but this fill has got to get out of there. We've
approved the College Circle project. The fill is going to go somewhere.
Board Member Mitrano - Well, how about a distribution between one and three?
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not sure when the... The issue is can the new road, the one we are going to
discuss next, be in place in such a way that the fill could be carried internally. Can you answer that?
Mr. Harding - The timing on that is unlikely to be in place in time to accommodate the excavation
operations at College Circle. Number one, we are in the preliminary plan approval stage of that
project in the next public hearing. Presuming that we get preliminary plan approval, we still need to
finalize the drawings, make revisions as they relate to the storm system and bring it back to the board
for final approval. Then we need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because it is an institutional
project. I don't expect the approvals to be in place in the best -case scenario until late June or early
July.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you aware of when construction of College Circle might begin?
Mr. Harding - They are hopeful to be into construction by the end of June, possibly even starting mid -
June.
Chairperson Wilcox - Somebody indicated that bids have been put out.
Mr. Harding - It is a construction manager type arrangement. They are in that process. Secondly,
don't advocate routing through the college. There are some pretty sharp turns as you go down
through that road system and when we go into that public hearing, I brought along the map you
aQ
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
requested of the route down through there. My recommendation is to take that right hand turn onto
96B down to Coddington. Going the opposite direction on 96B presents some problems. Trying to
take a left hand turn with fully loaded truck on a steep hill and trying to accelerate... I think the ideal
solution is to take it out onto that highway, which was designed to handle trucks like this. It is the
shortest route and the least likely to disturb the greatest number of residents.
Board Member Mitrano - I agree with that.
Chairperson Wilcox - I had forgotten about that issue of if you enter the Ithaca College campus from
the entrance on 96B and go up towards the football field and drive beyond the football field and head
up the hill. Going in that direction, there is a nasty right hand turn up the hill towards the parking lot
where this connector road would go. You are right. You would have trucks coming down that hill and
making that turn. The question is, do we want to in some way recommend a routing to the Zoning
Board of Appeals or not. I druthers is shortest distance impacts fewer people.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm not sure it impacts fewer people if you think about all the people who
live...
Mr. Hebdon - Fred, the only thought that we had was in talking with safety and stuff and wanting to
disperse the truck traffic a little bit. Dan and I had looked at possibly in a circle where the loaded
trucks would go across Coddington Road and go to the site, but the empties would go up the other
route, up towards Troy Road and back around. It is all right hand turns. You would only get half the
trucks on half the people during that whole time.
Board Member Hoffmann - That's a good idea.
Chairperson Wilcox - I always though engineers was better than lawyers, now I know why.
Attorney Barney - Of course they are better than lawyers.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, if they were to go back from Coddington Road on to Danby Road
turning left that is not an easy one to make. There is a lot of traffic there.
Chairperson Wilcox - There is a lot of traffic there and you have to cross the two lanes and there is no
signal at that intersection.
Board Member Hoffmann - That is an excellent idea. I would like to have us recommend that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Creig.
Board Member Conneman - One other question. If there is construction activity that means that the
truck will operate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and if they are grading it, it will be between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Construction activities refer to everything.
Chairperson Wilcox - Construction activities in this case refer to both the truck traffic and the on -site
grading.
•'7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Ms. Ritter - The truck traffic has already been controlled through the Ithaca College project resolution.
The grading itself would be controlled through this resolution.
Board Member Conneman - I just want to be sure that construction activities means grading and the
trucks.
Chairperson Wilcox - In this case it means the grading and the dumping.
Mr. Kanter - So if you do restrict the fill from only coming from College Circle, then I assume the time
limit on the trucking will be in effect.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would actually like us to recommend the fill come from College Circle
only. Otherwise, we don't know what sort of areas of the town are going to have all these trucks
going by.
Chairperson Wilcox - They have made that representation. I would like to include it. Would someone
like to move the draft resolution as written? So moved by the chair. Do I have a second?
Board Member Mitrano - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Tracy. One little minor change, paragraph 2d, submission of a
routing plan for trucks hauling material to the site, not off of the site. I just want you to concur.
Ms. Ritter - To the site.
Chairperson Wilcox - I believe that the board would like to add a clause "e" recommending that the...
Attorney Barney - The fill for this project come only from the project at College Circle.
Chairperson Wilcox - Correct. And 'T' that the trucks take the fill from College Circle to this site along
Route 96B, Coddington Road.
Attorney Barney - So you are substituting it for "d "?
Chairperson Wilcox - No. We are making a recommendation here.
Attorney Barney - These are all recommendations.
Mr. Kanter - I think maybe you want to add onto "d ".
Chairperson Wilcox - That we recommend that the trucks carrying the fill travel along 96B,
Coddington Road and that they return to the site along Coddington Road, Troy Road, King Road East
and then back out onto to 96B. I believe we are all comfortable with those changes. Tracy, are you
comfortable with those changes?
9111
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - John, do you got that?
Attorney Barney - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do we know when the Zoning Board of Appeals is planning to...
Mr. Smith - June 17th meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox - That is when the Zoning Board of Appeals will actually take this up. Is there any
further discussion? Mr. Barney, you're all set?
Attorney Barney - Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would just like to see more plantings on the slopes.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those in favor please signal by saying "aye ".
Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Conneman, Board Member Mitrano, Board Member Howe - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed?
Board Member Hoffmann - I abstain.
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva abstains. The motion passes 4 -0 -1.
Thank you Mr. Harding and others.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -050 - Ithaca College Building 25 Fill Project, A Report to the Zoning
Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with
respect to a request for Special Approval for the proposal to fill and grade up to 22, 000 cubic
yards of material on a 2.0 ± acre site located on the Ithaca College campus at the southwest
corner of Coddington Road and Main Campus Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41. -1 -26
and 41.4-25, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to utilize 22,000 ± cubic yards of
excavated material from the College Circle Apartments project, and via truck, transport the
material to the Ithaca College location on public roads. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design,
Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent, and
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will act as
Lead Agency, in environmental review, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a
Part II prepared by the Town of Ithaca, maps entitled "Site Plan and Details" dated April 10,
2002 and "Ithaca College Building 25 Grading Improvements Stormwater Analysis" dated April
4, 2002, and other application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
1. That the Planning Board in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the
applicant;
b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project;
C. the proposed use as a result of the proposed project is not in conflict with a
comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, subject to the following conditions:
a. That sediment and erosion control, and dust control methods in compliance with New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines for controlling
erosion, and siltation be practiced throughout the proposed project;
b. Construction activities related to the requested fill permit on the Ithaca College site shall
be restricted to weekdays during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.;
C. Obtaining any necessary permits from NYS Department of Transportation and
Tompkins County Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the fill permit;
d. Submission of a routing plan for trucks hauling material to the site, and a fill and grading
schedule, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Town Engineer, prior to
issuance of any fill permits; it being recommended that the trucks carrying the fill travel
north on Danby Road, then east and south on Coddington Road to the disposal site,
and that the empty trucks travel south on Coddington Road to Troy Road, south on Troy
Road to East King Road, west on East King Road, and south on Danby Road back to
College Circle.
e. The fill for this project shall come only from the project at College Circle.
32
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann.
The motion was declared to be carried.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairperson Wilcox - Larry called me yesterday. Larry is doing fine. There was some misinformation
communicated last time. After he had the surgery he was in ICU and his heart rate dropped. The
determination was that there was a blockage, not a heart attack. So they took him in the operating
room and put the pace maker in. He called me. He is fine. He offered to be here this evening if
there was a potential quorum issue. I said no. He said its best that he takes another couple of
weeks. He is getting out of the house. He is driving. There are still some issues with the surgery.
Nothing to be concerned about. He is feeling much better and is looking forward to coming back
here.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Ithaca College Connector Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - I believe David Harding is probably representing Ithaca College on this matter.
As you begin, I will tell members of the public they are more than welcome to come up behind us and
view the maps as David speaks.
Mr. Harding - This project, the Ithaca College Connector Road project, is being proposed to you as a
condition of the approval that you granted to the College Circle Apartments. It is intended to provide
a direct vehicular and pedestrian and bicycle link from the College Circle Apartments complex to the
College core area. The College considers this to be an interim solution. They are currently, as
mentioned earlier, looking at a master plan for the overall campus as prepared by Susaki and
Associates. Part of that master plan involves looking at these athletic fields, looking at a potential
field house and possibly seeing quite a drastic change in the way things are configured on this south
end of campus. They are, therefore, interested in trying to minimize their investment in this road.
You will see in my presentation some evidence of that because it may change substantially over the
next five years or so. What we are proposing to do is connect what is known as the existing L -Lot
extension parking lot, which is the linear parking lot reaching from the main campus area along the
west side of the athletic fields. That is an oil and stone pavement parking lot, double loaded on both
sides for the most part. It has a railroad tie curbing. We are proposing to leave that in place and
connect it to the College Circle Apartments with a 24 -foot wide oil and stone roadway.
More towards the north end of the project area in the vicinity of what is know as L -Lot, we are doing
some pavement reconfigurations. There is a missing... where there is a little grass island where we
will be installing asphalt pavement to create a link that truly boarders the outside of the parking areas
and tries to segregate the vehicular traffic from the parking. Also as part of this we are developing a
ION]
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
walkway, which in some instances down at the north end like I just described is merely going to be
additional asphalt pavement delineated with painted lines to distinguish the pedestrian area from
vehicular area. This is similar to conditions that the college has elsewhere on the project. As we
move closer to the L -Lot extension area, that walk will be on the outside on the east side of the
existing parking lot adjacent to the athletic fields. It will be separated from the parking by the railroad
tie curbing I described earlier.
As we approach the south end of the project site, the walkway will simply be asphalt surfacing of the
existing gravel driveway that is currently used as a walkway from College Circle. You will see a
second walk on the west side of the roadway, which provides the connection of the walk system that
occurs on the west side of the College Circle project. There are I believe six instances where we are
introducing stop signs at various points along this route to help calm the traffic. The fact that this
roadway is going down through the middle of existing parking spaces is traffic calming in and of itself.
It is when you get into the vital roadways where you tend to see the more uncontrolled speed. I am
told that the campus security is pretty vigilant. It stays on top of those types of things. So I think we
have the benefit of that as well.
We are proposing to create additional retention basin area as part of this project. That is in part to
compensate for the change in runoff that is occurring from the improvements, as they will be built this
summer. Also in part to mitigate for increased runoff that occurred as part of the L -Lot extension
work, which kind of evolved over time. We had prepared a drainage study and proposed a system to
divert some of the runoff that is coming down through the swale between the College Circle property
and the college property. There has seen been further discussion and further calculations and then
with all the rainfall, we have been requested by the Town Engineer and we will be obliging them to
modify that design to change it from a diversion arrangement to actually capturing the water that
occurs uphill at the College Circle property and directly routing that over into the detention basin.
This is specifically to address concerns that we are restoring watershed areas to the way they were
years ago before the problems that are being experienced started to be problematic.
There is a comment in some of the review materials that none of this work should be allowed to be
done until this swale as designed by TG Miller for the College Circle project is constructed. That is
the intent here. Really the way that is worded is that no work should be initiated on either property
until that swale is implemented. It is my understanding that the college or IAD has obtained bids for
that and the work for the swale improvements and the storm line leading down to the highway will
commence sometime within the next three to four weeks.
I will conclude the SEAR part of this in that we are obliging the Town in all the conditions that arose
during the College Circle Apartments project, namely getting the traffic off of the highway and putting
it onto this connector road. From that standpoint we are addressing an environmental concern the
board has raised. The stormwater because of the additional retention facilities and I failed to mention
that the existing detention facility, which has a 24 -inch diameter pipe out letting really doesn't function
practically as a detention basin at this point in time. Part of the work that we are proposing is to
construct an outlet structure on there, which ... the size of the outlet pipes down to a 6 -inch diameter.
It will control the smaller storm events like the one we had a couple of weeks ago. I would like to
point out that you got inundated with rain here, but that was a two -year storm event essentially.
9n,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Hebdon - No. It was much higher than that.
Mr. Harding - I talked to people and they said the accumulations of rain were on the order of 2.7
inches. There may have been some localized activities up on the hill.
Mr. Hebdon - We got 2.7 inches, but we got it in a 2 -hour time period after it was saturated soil. It
was up above the 500 -year event.
Chairperson Wilcox - At least in the South Hill area where there was microburst.
Mr. Harding - So that combined with the fact that we are constructing this connector road and
intercepting a lot of the drainage that currently flows down onto the adjoining residential properties will
have a positive impact. It will reduce the drainage problem.
Chairperson Wilcox - You mentioned the 24 -inch pipes. The water right now is just flowing in and
flowing out.
Mr. Harding - Actually, if you have a 500 year storm event then you might have seen some mutilation
in there, but that would be about the only time.
Chairperson Wilcox - Creig, it is nice to have you here tonight. My assumption is that you've
reviewed the technical details as the assistant engineer, drainage details and other details.
Mr. Hebdon - Yes. As Dave was saying, we've been bouncing this back and forth a little bit. It was a
recommendation that he spleen the drainage areas up the way he was explaining with separate
pipes. What happens right now is that a lot of the drainage area comes down and connects with the
College Circle swale that comes across the back. It then comes to one point. At that point, part of it
needed to be diverted one way and part of it needed to be diverted the other way. As Dave was
saying, our preference was to take that one drainage area that should have been diverted down and
around the swales up above the College Circles so that it never mingles with the College Circle water.
Keep those watersheds apart and keep them going in the direction that they originally go. We felt
that with the additions of the ponds and stuff and connecting those into the pond that we would help
mitigate what had happened. What had happened is where it all came together in one spot and we
had that big blow out. We need to separate that water out before it gets to the point where it's all
together.
Chairperson Wilcox - Why bring it together to bring it apart? Okay.
Mr. Harding - I had one other item and that was the question that arose as to whether we were
impacting any rare or unique species in what is considered to be a unique natural area. I do have a
copy of a report from Trowbridge and Wolf, who are the experts in that area. We had them go out a
look at the site over this past weekend and issue this report in time for the meeting. They did not find
any rare endangered species or anything on that to really distinguish it as being unique. Our belief is
that it just happens to remain in that classification of a unique area just by virtue of an extension of
the boundaries.
9161
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that report prepared by Kathryn Wolf?
Mr. Harding - It was done by Peter Trowbridge and Nina Basset was the assistant doing the fieldwork.
Chairperson Wilcox - Creig, do you have anything else you want to talk about now or do you want to
wait for questions from the board?
Mr. Hebdon - We had some concerns with oil and stone as a base with the amount of bus and traffic
that is going to be going across the road. I don't think it is going to last too long. They have a good
stone base underneath, but it is still just oil and stone. I have some concerns about maybe needing a
little asphalt in there just to hold the roadway up and stop the potholes and erosion.
Mr. Harding -1 have explained to the college that oil and stone may require more maintenance than a
traditional asphalt pavement. Their thinking on it is that they have an oil and stone parking lot, which
for all practical purposes this is an asphalt binder type of surfacing. It has held up pretty well over I
believe eight or ten years.
Mr. Salm - In a sense I agree with you. This is master plan stuff again. We are looking at a field
house that would encroach on that whole area up there. If it does, it may change the whole
configuration of that area including the playing fields. If you remember we had some discussion
during the College Circle time as to whether or not we should put parking over on the other side on
the east side of the fields. We would still like to keep that open as an opportunity. We will be coming
back to Town Planning staff shortly on the Conservation Zone demarcation line with trying to fit in four
playing fields up on the top of the hill because we think we may ultimately lose one or more of those
fields to accommodate the field house and parking for both the field house and the Terrace
Residence Halls. We don't know for sure but we are moved ahead with that. We have a program
plan for the field house and our development fund raising people just put together a fund raising team
to go out and start raising money for that project. So we think that, knock on wood, if we can find
some money we will be going ahead within the next couple of years. So it is simply the case of not
spending the money to put down an asphalt pavement to save some dollars. If we were putting it
there permanently I would have no question about the asphalt.
Board Member Hoffmann - While you are up there, this struck me as something new in Mr. Harding's
presentation and what you are saying, too, now about the change in plans, specifically for the road.
The implication, as I hear it, is that the road might not stay in this location.
Mr. Salm - That's right.
Board Member Hoffmann - Where would it go if it didn't stay here?
Mr. Salm - The discussion we had during the College Circle discussion if we decided would be the
other side of the playing fields. If ultimately the field house encroached on those fields enough that
we thought we were going to eliminate one or more of them it might come down the center or
something like that. I really don't know. I can't really speculate. The assumption is that there may be
some significant additional changes in that area. We did talk about taking the road around to the east
side of the playing fields rather than the around the current side where it is on the west side.
KZ01
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - It was discussed early on, but I thought that the college agreed with us
that that was perhaps not a good location because it is so close to the UNA.
Mr. Salm - Yes, but the UNA is changing, as well at least in terms of what we are looking at in terms
of demarcation lines. That has moved away a bit at least in terms of what we have been talking
about. I am not suggesting in any way that we would not come back for appropriate planning
approval if we did decide to move it. We would have to go back through it, maybe a reworking of the
whole area. Again in my mind, and some people disagree with me on this, the playing fields are just
dirt. They are fairly easy to move compared to what we might have to do for parking structures and
parking lots and or field houses. I would like to keep more options open.
Board Member Conneman - Creig, is your bailey wick traffic calming devices painted lines, stop
signs, curvy roads, is that part of what you do as an engineer? Would you like to comment on what
Ithaca College has proposed there?
Mr. Hebdon - They have the stop signs down through there. I haven't taken an extensive look at
traffic calming measure. I assume that because of the way that the road is structured the only people
you really are going to get running on this are from College Circle down through. You are not going
to get the heavy traffic that you would get on one of the outside roads.
Board Member Conneman - Mr. Harding mentioned painted lines. Is there an alternative to painted
lines?
Mr. Hebdon - For demarking where the traffic is going?
Board Member Conneman - Yeah, where the sidewalk is. I was just curious.
Mr. Hebdon - I'm not sure.
Mr. Kanter - I think in most cases the walkway is on the far side of the parking spaces. So in most
areas, George, I don't think it is going to be right in the travel path of vehicles. There might be a few
spots where it will be...
Board Member Conneman - Where are the painted lines that David referred to?
Mr. Harding - There is a section where the walkway ... (not audible) There are some instances where
they are referred to as safe ways. Sometimes delineating the walkways with painted lines is referred
to as safe ways. It accommodates easier snowplow operations and its better than not having
anything delineated I guess is the point of them.
Mr. Kanter - Is there an inexpensive solution that might provide some additional separation?
Mr. Harding - We could always put more railroad tie curbing in.
Mr. Kanter - Maybe something a little more...
37
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - We are getting into site plan. But for the record, I agree it would be nice to get
some separation. You've described it as about 100 feet. It would be nice to have some separation
there as there is in the rest of the...
Mr. Harding - I can look at that. What I might be able to do is actually remove the pavement there
and create a lawn area that segregates the two. That would be more difficult at the north end of the
site because if you are familiar with it, it is a very constricted area with the grade dropping off quite
sharply off to the west and to try to develop that walkway segregated from the road would require
disturbing a lot more of the trees and getting into the shrubs. It is an extension of an existing situation
with the same painted lines in it. I think it is appropriate in that location.
Chairperson Wilcox - Go ahead, Eva.
Board Member Hoffmann - While you are there next to the map, could you please show which part of
the UNA that this survey by Peter Trowbridge refers to?
Mr. Harding - The UNA currently comes down to somewhere along this tree line. Then wraps down
around the south end of the athletic fields and wraps back in this direction. I have another exhibit that
you asked me to prepare was the exhibit of the extent of the tree removal and plantings.
Chairperson Wilcox - Mike, does that sound about right if you are familiar with that UNA?
Mr. Smith - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - The crosshatched area represents the South Hill UNA.
Mr. Harding - (Comments not audible)
Board Member Hoffmann - I haven't read the letter because you just handed it to us, but did they
survey just that part then.
Mr. Harding - This is the part being impacted by the...
Board Member Hoffmann - I see. So it doesn't talk about the whole UNA. They just surveyed a very
small part. Okay, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does anybody else have questions at this point? Creig, talk about Monday's
storm a little bit if you will. I had heard someone else independently mention microburst. Could you
put some facts and figures on it? What happened on Monday?
Mr. Hebdon - Monday afternoon, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, we started to getting a heavy rain
after we already had about three quarters of an inch, which saturated the existing soil conditions. So
we basically were at a point where everything that hit was pure runoff. In the first hour we got eight
tenths of an inch. Then we got six and a half to seven tenths of inch and then we go another four
tenths of an inch. That was up on Game Farm Road and South Hill got hit harder than that. Dan and
I were standing there. We got on the radar sites. You could actually see a yellow coming along and
91.01
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
following right down through South Hill. Basically, it was hitting South Hill, dumping its load and then
breaking up and moving elsewhere. I know Cathy said she went to Caroline. She got just passed
South Hill and everything stopped. It was just sprinkles that way. So basically, we got two or plus
inches over a three hour period. In a twenty -four hour period, if you get five and half inches that is a
500 -year storm. Since we were already at a saturated point, you could take and extend that out and
it is equivalent to ten or twelve inches over a twenty -four hour period. It is like Hurricane Agnes
coming through and just over South Hill. There is not a whole lot of design work you can do to hit
that. That is what hit Stone Quarry Road and caused us to have to close that out.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Any other question for Mr. Harding? I also noticed that David
Herrick is hiding in the back. He is available, I presume, should we have some specific question that
he might be the best person to answer. With the indulgence of the board, I think the issues with
regard to this are mostly environmental. So I want to give the public a chance to address the board
on the environmental concerns as they see it, while at the same time reminding those members of the
public that there will also be a public hearing scheduled, when and if we get through the
environmental review. You are welcome to come up and speak now as we discuss the environmental
issues. You will still have the opportunity to speak once again when we and if we get to the site plan
issues. So having said that, if there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning
Board this evening on the environmental issues with regard to the connector road, we once again ask
you to please come to the microphone. Give us your name and address, even though we know who
you are, and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say.
John Yntema, 993 Danby Road - See Attachment #2.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else?
Jeff Kirschman, 1005 Danby Road - On May 13th at approximately 5:45 p.m. I came home and found
a river along the north edge of my property, such that it was sheeting across about 30 feet wide and
going along the north edge of my property and dumping down into that culvert. Tracing that back, I
went around to the College Circle property. If you noticed, they have an 18 -inch swale around their
property. Currently, that is supposed to divert water. That was essentially dry. In comparison to
where they now have this diversion creek, ditch, swale where it was just rampaging with water to the
point where it had overflowed the pipe or the pipe itself was supposed to divert water into the
diversion pond onto Ithaca College's campus was blocked. That water was now coming up over the
road and then sheeting down into my property. It was so strong that there was actually a keg washed
halfway into the woods at that point.
Chairperson Wilcox - As in beer keg?
Mr. Kirschman - As in beer keg. I didn't crawl into the woods and find out if it was still full. What we
are looking at here is a large amount of water. Yes, it was a microburst. Still, at 6:00 p.m. we were
draining large amounts of water around there. I would like to thank Ithaca College because once I
called their Safety Division, they were able to get maintenance men out there to open the ditch and
divert the water so that it went to where it was supposed to be going. This re- enforces what John
was saying that if this is not properly maintained, we do have some significant problems in that area.
gue
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
As I look at this, the fact is the diversion ditch, or swale, does not cover the end parts of the property
that are north of me. Again, I point out the fact that they continue to have flooding. Most of my water
problems are diverted towards, John actually, which is just great for me but not good for my
neighbors. I would like to ask you to consider that when looking at this plan. Also, College Circle's
diversion areas were not significantly hit. You had basically two swales almost right next to each
other. One was not carrying any water in it and the other one was just pretty much carrying all the
water. Also, I noticed on this map that you put a crosswalk, but you haven't relocated any of your
lights or Ithaca College hasn't put any lights around that area to light that area up for safety. Since I
think it is always an environmental concern to find dead students on a back road, I thought...
This swale here going through the woods is going to make it more difficult for the maintenance people
to get a handle on it. I don't know if it needs a bigger pipe, but I do know it needs to be maintained if
it is to be working properly.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Anybody else this evening interested in commenting on some of
the environmental issues? Okay. Is it feasible to build stormwater detention facilities, ditches, pipes,
culverts that would handle a storm such as the one we had a week ago?
Mr. Hebdon - I can build anything given enough money.
Chairperson Wilcox - Where I'm going is, and I think you know where I'm going, most people would
argue that it is unreasonable to build enough power plants to handle the ultimate peak power demand
for electricity. Occasionally, there might be an event where there might not be sufficient electricity. Is
the storm we had a week ago the type of storm we should be designing storm water detention and
other facilities for?
Mr. Hebdon - It blew out everything all over the Town. I don't think we can build all the pipes that...
Looking at College Circle, though, what Mr. Yntema was talking about with the size of the piping stuff
I think that we have sort of taken care of that. We asked them to take the other watershed area down
a separate pipe. I think it is a 21 -inch pipe that is in addition to the other pipe than you've got. It is
more than a 30 or 40 percent increase in the size of that pipe. By taking that one watershed and
moving it down, around, what happened on Monday, and Dan and I were up there looking, is you had
the upper watershed combined with the lower watershed coming to a point. Then the other pipe got
overwhelmed and just blew out everything. What we have asked them to do and what they have
agreed to do is stop those two from combining above up on that property. Bring the one down, bring
it into the stormwater detention basins where it can be slowed down and we can do some work on it.
Before, I went up there and looked at the detention basins they've had and there wasn't anything
going through them. None of the water got caught to go down into those detention basins. By doing
what we were hoping to do that we are going to get those separated and move it into the detention
basin and never get them mixed up so we end up with that overwhelming amount in one spot.
Board Member Hoffmann - Can I ask you to show us that on the map what you talking about? I have
a hard time understanding what the difference is between these two proposals.
Mr. Hebdon outlined the location of the pipes and detention basins (not audible).
He]
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Does that answer your question, Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - It helps. In what way is that different from what the applicant had
proposed?
Mr. Hebdon explained the original proposal (not audible).
Chairperson Wilcox - We had some discussion during College Circle about keeping water that was in
the watersheds. I remember Dan Walker talking about the benefits about keeping water within the
proper watersheds.
David Herrick, TG Miller - I'm holding in front of you a copy of the watershed map that TG Miller had
drawn for the College Circle Apartments Complex. I want to show this to you to illustrate the
relationship of different watershed areas. In area number 7, which is this long finger over at the
northern boundary, comes down and drains into the swale that we've been talking about ... the ditch
along the south edge of the athletic fields. What is really contributing to the flows that exacerbated
the drainage problems the other day is the fact that watershed area number 4 involves close to 100
acres. What we are trying to do is pull the water that is coming out of the narrow one and direct it into
our system. The design from TG Miller for College Circle project and for the swale and storm line
down to the Kirschman and Yntema property would accommodate everything else.
I wanted to also share with you some additional calculations that I have made in response to the
comments that we received from the ERC. It pertains to the crown configuration of the connector
road increase in run -off on to the properties downhill from them. These calculations indicate that is
not the case at all. We are in fact building the connector road, which in essence acts as a dam and
blocks drainage that currently comes from the wood line east of the soccer field down onto residential
properties. It entails something like a 4.2 -acre area. When you calculate the run -off without the
pavement being counted in as an existing condition, you are going to get a 14.02 cubic foot per
second flow off of that. Once we build the connector road, it reduces the watershed area contributing
to those downhill residences by 1.8 acres. It is taken right out of the mix and directing that over to the
detention basins. When you take into consideration the increase run -off from what is actually a
minimal amount of area from the roadway, the west half of the roadway, the calculations indicate that
the flow is at 10.86 cubic feet per second. So, we are actually by virtue even with the crown section,
reducing the total volume of run -off contributing to those two properties. This was based on a 100 -
year storm event, which is 5.5 inches of rain in a 24 -hour period.
I think the fact of the matter is to answer the question that was asked earlier; is there a facility you can
design to mitigate the rain we had the other day. You are talking about a canal. That is a huge, huge
storm.
Board Member Conneman - Would it have happened if those two water supplies had not come
together? You said it was a huge storm, but part of the problem was, if I understand it, that the two
closest watersheds came together.
41
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Herrick - I don't think the fact that they had come together exacerbated it what so ever. Based on
what I had heard, it was just a rather unusual amount of rain. Did the water actually flow over 96B?
Normally, the NYSDOT design criteria for culvert are a 50 -year design storm.
Chairperson Wilcox - You did mention a detention basin that wasn't doing its job, though.
Mr. Herrick - Yes. Creig, did you observe that detention basin during the event?
Mr. Hebdon - Basically, the pipe up above it got clogged up. There was no water running to the
detention basin. It never saw any of the water.
Mr. Herrick - The pipe you are referring to, I believe, is a 12 or 15 -inch pipe that is woefully
undersized. In the design that we have, not only are we going to pipe the flow from sub area 7 before
it is confluent with adjoining watershed area, but as a back up to that there is a swale being
developed on the east side of the connector road that will intercept any excess water. If you happen
to get a storm event that exceeded the design storm, that swale would act as a back up to divert
some of that water. Traditionally, when we design storm systems, we are designing for the 10 -year
storm event. We do pay attention to what the flood routes are in the event that it does exceed the
capacity of the pipes and make sure it doesn't flow into your door or something of that nature. I would
suggest in that instance the pipe that we capture water from area 7 with utilize that same 50 -year
design storm criteria that New York State utilizes. The swale would provide the redundancy and the
back -up plan. A 500 -year storm event means it has a pretty slim chance of occurring. It could occur
again next week, but then it might now occur for another 1,000 years.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm satisfied.
Board Member Conneman - I'm not sure that I am.
Board Member Mitrano - What would you like them to do?
Board Member Conneman - I would like them to answer the question that the other gentlemen raised.
Board Member Mitrano - ...they have already broadened the diameter of the pipe. They made
addition...
Board Member Conneman - How big is the pipe going to be?
Mr. Herrick - I can't say at this point until I run the calculations. If I use a 50 year design storm, I'm
imaging the pipe would be on the order of 24 inches. As Mr. Yntema noted, the pipe that is being
proposed down below between his and Mr. Kirschman's property is 30 inches. That accommodates a
much bigger watershed area.
Board Member Mitrano - In terms of trespass actions based on water like this, do you have to do
something in particular if it is nature itself running its course and you live downstream from someone,
does upstream have liability? Or is it only if they did something in particular such that the water
events are going to start flowing in a particular? My neighbor has set up their pump for their
42
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
basement and it goes onto my property then out to the ditch. Then I would see a cause of action. If
you just have a lot of rain and you are down hill from that rain...
Attorney Barney - It is a question of channeling. If it a sheet flow off of your property to a downhill
property, there is not usually any liability. If you have taken steps to channel it so that it directs it to
the other person's property, then you may have some responsibility.
Board Member Mitrano - In other words, Mr. Yntema, should any of this not be appropriate, he could
pursue in trespass in saying that they have inadequately channeled water from their property?
Attorney Barney - There might be some course of action.
Board Member Conneman - ...a 30 -inch pipe... might solve whatever many years you want to look at.
Mr. Herrick - My understanding is that the design of that 30 -inch pipe assumed that the volume and
the flow of water from sub area 7 would have been relieved from them. That was being done under
that diversion structure that we initially proposed and will still be done under this other concept.
Board Member Conneman - What is going to prevent that pipe from up above clogging again and not
creating a...
Mr. Herrick - We will design a trash rack on the headwall that will be catching it, similar in nature to
what is being proposed on the headwall catching the water in a lower diversion swale. It requires that
it be inspected on an on -going basis and cleaned out. You heard tonight that it was part of the
problem. That is the one advantage to the scheme we proposed here. It puts the diversion structure
right there next to the connector road in a very visible location where it is easy to observe whether
something might be... My recommendation to the college is to institute a program inspecting that pipe
on a several times a year basis to make sure it is not plugged with any debris.
Chairperson Wilcox - I can't sit here and necessarily criticize Ithaca College because I don't know
what their facilities and ground staff were going through on Monday and Monday afternoon. I would
hope that when you have a storm event such as we had that they know where those critical
stormwater facilities are and that they get out and check them and clean them. Whether they did or
they didn't, I don't know. I am going to get some rebuttal no matter what.
Mr. Salm - I agree with you. I don't know what happened Monday. I do know that we had an
exceptional storm. We got flooded in two Garden Apartments. We have never had a flood in my 26
years there. We had significant water in both of them. We have an obligation to do that, I agree. I
think there was some language in our College Circle thing about maintenance and we don't have any
problem with the same kind of thing here. We have safety people that are going around all the time.
That is perfectly reasonable.
Chairperson Wilcox - For the record, we had water in our basement for the first time in 19 years. All
right. I want to try to address some of the other issues. Mr. Yntema talked about stormwater
detention facilities in place before construction. We are getting a little ahead of ourselves, but I think
that has been addressed in the draft resolution. I'm certainly no drainage expert. None of us our
EX
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
experts on this. Your comments are that with that change i.e., not letting the water come together
from the two watersheds that the Town Engineering Department believes that this is sufficient. That
the drainage mitigation measures depend upon...
Mr. Hebdon - We feel that this will take care of what we would normally design to also.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would this design take care of the sort of storm that happened last Monday?
Mr. Hebdon - I think it would help mitigate it. Would it take of it completely? That depends on if they
had the pipes clean, if everything was running right. I think it would take care of 90 percent of it.
don't think you would have seen the 6 or 8 inches of flooding that you had. I think it was a good
possibility to have 2 or 3 inches coming over the top of it.
Board Member Conneman - Creig, I'm not an engineer, but I understand physics and the bigger you
make that pipe the capacity become much bigger. Is that right?
Mr. Hebdon - Correct. The bigger you make the pipe, we get the flow running from up above. It will
come flying down through there. Then you get into the storm detention basins and it is coming in at a
much higher rate that the storm detention basins can take. So you blew up the storm detention basin.
It continues on down the line and then all of a sudden Wicks is now under 2 feet of water or 4 feet of
water where before they only 6 inches. It is a real tricky balancing act. You try to size the pipes for
the best storm, the storm that you can 90 percent of the time expect to have. Once in a while what
happens is you get hit. I'm not going to guarantee that if we get 36 inches of snow and then we have
a 2 -inch rain that anything is going to take it. At that point, probably none of the water systems are
going to be able to take them.
Board Member Conneman - I understand. But, is it clear in this resolution someplace, Fred that these
water systems are not going to meet, that they are going to be separate? I don't know if I see it. Mr.
Harding said it is there, or at least he implied it.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is in "c ". Mr. Yntema presented us with calculations questioning the size of
the drainage pipe and the size of the archway and whether they are consistent or inconsistent with
each other. I can't look at this and make a determination. Will someone help me?
Mr. Smith - Most of these referred to the approved plans of the College Circle project.
Chairperson Wilcox - David Herrick, can I ask you to come forward? You designed the drainage
facilities for the College Circle. It's not apparent to me that you have had any direct involvement with
the design of the stormwater facilities for the connector road. Have you and David Harding been
discussing how the two stormwater systems will work together.
Mr. Herrick - Yes. What your recommendation in the SEQR material is suggesting is identical to what
we had proposed in our stormwater studies. It is coordinated to address a lot of these issues that we
had already conceded exists.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there anything with regard to the proposed stormwater detention facilities on
the connector road that have an impact on the previously approved College Circle plan, i.e. the
separation of the water for example at an earlier point? Does that have an impact on what we have
already approved?
Mr. Herrick - No. The separation of the watersheds is exactly the development of systems ... I report
envisioned that sub area 7 would become part of the connector road system. It is in total keeping
with our original presentation.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Last but not least, to the left of the headwall along the connector
road, what is going to take care of potential drainage issues from that flowing downhill towards 96B?
Mr. Harding - This exists ... (not audible, about 3 to 4 minutes)
Mr. Kanter - I think the one area that doesn't seem to be addressed that Mr. Yntema raised was that
stretch of flow left of where the new storm pipe would go. So it is directly above Mr. Yntema's
property.
Mr. Harding - There is an opportunity to minimize the watershed area further by putting in a second
interceptor ditch along the property line. (not audible 1 to 2 minutes)
Attorney Barney - If you ditched it, where is it going to go?
Mr. Harding - There is right now the stormwater discharging out of the detention basin. There may be
an opportunity to put that into that...
Chairperson Wilcox - Your models indicate that is not necessary. Does the site visits indicate that the
benefit is worth the expense? That there is value here to doing this?
Mr. Harding - The value is peace of mind. (not audible 1 to 2 minutes)
Chairperson Wilcox - John, in general, the flooding problems that you and your neighbors have
experienced, is that the sheeting of water from the Ithaca College's property on to your property or is
that the channeled water that simply cannot be restricted within the channels? Water can be
channeled into pipes or ditches. They can also just simply flow naturally from one property line to
another or sheet across. We saw pictures earlier this year. We have additional pictures now. Is that
because channeled water is overflowing its boundaries or is it just excessive sheeting of water
generally across from Ithaca College to your property?
Mr. Yntema - Both.
Mr. Kanter - It sounds like the major part of the problem was the failing of the pipe up above, which
isn't going to be there anymore after the College Circle...
Chairperson Wilcox - To do its job.
M1
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Kanter - To do its job.
Chairperson Wilcox - Why do you say both?
Mr. Yntema - The water sheets from the Kirschman's property onto my property. Some of it goes into
ditches on my, which were obviously intended to take care of water. My garage has flooded three
times in the last two years and it has never happened before. It is all due to the College Circle ... the
ditch behind College Circle is probably 90 percent of the problem, not what's coming down from
Ithaca College.
Chairperson Wilcox - Which is where many of the mitigation measures are being proposed.
Mr. Yntema - We have water coming straight down from Ithaca College. It is going down the other
side of the headwall.
Chairperson Wilcox - It couldn't be dealt with Monday by the existing drainage swale because it was
full of water from what I believe is being referred to as area 7.
Mr. Yntema - That is pretty small compared to the one next to it.
Chairperson Wilcox - And that is what's coming down through your property... what is being
channeled through your property?
Mr. Yntema - Then there is water coming down. It is coming down from Ithaca College north of the
headwall. Right now it comes down from where the other side of the headwall would be and then
goes onto Mr. Kirschman's property. I'm getting it from all over. Mrs. Robinson, which is farther over,
doesn't have anything to do with what is coming from Mr. Kirschman's property.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have opinions from the Assistant Town Engineer and I have the consultant
working with Ithaca College both recognizing the fact that there are drainage problems there today.
There are some pre- existing problems that need to be rectified. The question is does all of this solve
the existing problems and mitigate any potential new problems. That is what is before us.
Board Member Conneman - I think there is value in peace of mind. It seems to me if you are talking
about a couple of thousand dollars... it may be the last thing to solve the problem why not do it?
Board Member Mitrano - Because it is not indicated as necessary. We won't know that because they
have not yet constructed the...
Board Member Conneman - So you want them to come back with a different plan and they will come
back to us again?
Board Member Mitrano - I don't know. It just seems like sometimes there is a limit to how much you
ask an applicant to do. And if we have our own Town Engineer saying that he is satisfied with the
proposal, yeah we could ask them to build a gold road and a brick...
Cool
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Conneman - Oh, come on.
Board Member Mitrano - Well, it is the direction that it goes in, George. It is not indicated as
necessary. Creig, could you please speak to it? What do you think? What do we know?
Board Member Conneman - Mr. Yntema thinks that it is indicated.
Board Member Mitrano - It's a matter of peace of mind, if we are talking about a psychological
problem or an engineering problem they are separate.
Board Member Conneman - We're not talking about psychological.
Chairperson Wilcox - I believe she asked you a question an additional swale or ditch that would run
behind the properties of Mr. Yntema's neighbors.
Mr. Hebdon - Right now, the design should take of, like Dave said, everything that was there. If we
get one of those 500 -year storms, at that point maybe it would pick it up maybe that would pick up
some of that water and take care of it. The question that the Town Planning Board has to answer is
what level do you make an applicant design to.
Attorney Barney - (Comments not audible)
Mr. Hebdon - For a 100 -year storm, what they've got in there will take care of it.
Chairperson Wilcox - It not only takes care of the future development, but mitigates the existing
problems...
Mr. Hebdon - I feel so, yes.
Mr. Smith - I would also like to mention that the other swale if you are putting it on the edge of those
two properties would require a lot more vegetation...
Attorney Barney - (Comments not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there any further question or discussion?
Board Member Hoffmann - I have one housekeeping question having to do with the form. Page 2,
there is a little more than half way down, point e, comments of staff. We did get some comments
from the Conservation Board so that should be checked off. This is an item that we locally added to
the form. It happened before.
Mr. Smith - A lot of the time we don't have the ERC comments when we are preparing the SEAR.
They come in a lot later.
Board Member Hoffmann - Anyway, it should be added.
47
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Same form, first page, items number 3, precise location. It lists one of the tax
parcel numbers. It doesn't list the other one, which is 41. -1 -30.2. Item number 11; the answer is yes,
the Zoning Board of Appeals. No disagreement? Okay.
What do you think guys now that its...? Eva, any additional questions?
Board Member Hoffmann - I remember last we heard that there was going to be a lot of vegetation
taken away to the east of Mr. Yntema's land in order to put in the road and that detention pond. I was
driving up there today. The area west of that existing road, which is going to become a walkway, is
very wooded. A lot of those trees are going to go away.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Hoffmann - This might just be for a temporary road it sounds like tonight. This is the
first time I've heard that the road might go somewhere else.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the SEAR motion? So moved by Rod Howe. Do
I have a second?
Board Member Mitrano - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. Any further discussion? Comments by staff? All
those in favor please signal by raising your hand? I have four. All those opposed? I have one
opposed. There are no abstentions. The motion is passed.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -051 - SEQR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Ithaca College
Connector Road, Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a
connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca
College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15.
The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities
including a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate
the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval,
and
L1:3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
3. The Planning Board, on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning Staff, plans titled "Topographic Map" (sheets 1 -3) and "Boundary and Topographic
Map, " dated 212612002, prepared by T. G. Miller P. C., "Overall Site Plan" (sheet L -1), "Demolition
Plan" (sheet L -2), "Grading & Utility Plan — South and Details" (sheet L -3), "Grading & Utility Plan
— North and Details" (sheet L -4), "Site Details" (sheet L -5), "Layout Plan — South" (sheet L -6),
"Layout Plan — North" (sheet L -7) dated April 1, 2002, prepared by QPK Design, "Campus Road
Network Map" (sheet X -1) and "Landscaping Plan" (sheet X -2), dated April 15, 2002, prepared by
QPK Design, and other application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
referenced action as proposed, and therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an
Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: Conneman.
The motion was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:58 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a
connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca
College, Town of Ithaca Tax No.'s 42. -1 -13.2 and 41. -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. The
project involves construction of a 590 ± foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities including a
new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate the new
road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 10:58 p.m.
Mr. Yntema - One of my concerns has to do with how much of the watershed behind College Circle
and their ditch is going to be diverted into their drainage channel or if it is only the area 7 that is going
to be diverted into the detention pond. It seems to me that most of the water is still going to be going
down the swale to the headwall and down the pipe to Danby Road. We've had this happen three
times in the last two years. Apparently, it isn't all that abnormal, but it's always because of the water
flowing down from the ditch behind College Circle. I would just ask that that really be taken into
careful consideration. Thank you.
•7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Anybody else? There being none. 1 will close the public hearing at
11:00 P.M.
Creig, can you respond directly to those comments or not?
Mr. Hebdon - All I can say is that nothing is proposed from the connector will exaggerate anything
that has already been approved through the College Circle. Does that make any sense at all?
Chairperson Wilcox - I think you confirmed the question I asked before about is there anything that is
being done with this project that would have an impact on the previously approved College Circle
drainage.
Mr. Hebdon - Anything that was done with College Circle and anything that is going to be done
tonight are going to be completely separate.
Chairperson Wilcox - You're confirming what Mr. Herrick said. As part of environmental review, the
issue of lights along the roadway was brought up. Not having lights was brought up as an
environmental concern. Having lights is also an environmental concern. In looking at the plans...
Mr. Smith - The site plan does show lighting along that existing lane.
Chairperson Wilcox - David, can you point out the lighting along that walkway?
Mr. Harding - The lighting predominantly exists. The one exception to that is there is a light pole
currently at the end of the College Circle parking area. We are relocating that light. There is currently
a light... There is one here on an existing wooden pole. There is one here at this pedestrian
crossing. There is one right here in the vicinity where the walkway meets back up with the roadway.
Chairperson Wilcox - The blue lights are important, but they don't necessarily light the way.
Mr. Harding - There are lights that look like 150 intervals along this edge of the parking lot right up to
this section. Then there are lights in the parking lot.
Chairperson Wilcox - In just looking through the submittals, I don't see any design details for the
lights.
Mr. Harding - We are not proposing any new lights. They are all existing with the exception of the
one that is being relocated.
Chairperson Wilcox - Because of the elevations, it is important that those lights be properly shielded
and properly directed down. If there are existing lights, there is not much we can do other than the
one that is being relocated.
Mr. Harding - I believe that may be the shoebox type that was preferred the last time I was before this
board with the Linderman Creek project. I will have to substantiate that.
61111
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - Could I ask you if there is another light near the one that is being
relocated because you are moving that light quite far away to the north. Is there another one?
Mr. Harding - That is why it is being relocated. It would have been a fairly dark area of the road.
Chairperson Wilcox - Creig, I'm so glad you're here tonight. I told you that you would be on the spot.
With regard to the road surface, you heard tonight that Ithaca College would like to keep it as oil and
stone because they are concerned that the road may be temporary. Does that in anyway impact your
recommendation that the road be asphalt? Can a proposed oil and stone road be built so that it
functions more like an asphalt road?
Mr. Hebdon - If they were to come back within the next two years with a change, then I would say the
oil and stone is probably the way to go for now. If it is going to take longer than that, at that point
you're going to start really beating the base up underneath that road. At that point I would say that
they need to get some asphalt in there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Tom Salm.
Mr. Salm - That is reasonable. Within two years I would hope we would know what we are going to
be doing up in that area. Eva, I know we hadn't talked about this before but we did, I thought, during
the master plan process talk about the possibility of going to the other side with that. We had talked
about it.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, but I hadn't realized that this was going to be built first and then just
within a couple of years perhaps it would be relocated. That I had not heard.
Mr. Salm - Anyhow, that is reasonable. I mean if you want to put some kind of limitation in there
because he is correct. A couple of years with this kind of a thing... another thing we will know a lot
better what our traffic flow is going to be. We are hope it will be fairly restrictive like this gentleman
suggested to just the College Circle property and buses. A couple years would give us an opportunity
to find out what the traffic is.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. Thank you, Tom.
Board Member Conneman - I hasn't resolved the 100 feet issue between the ... you said you put some
railroad ties or something there.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think I wrote down some sort of a condition where the painted line separation
would be replaced with some sort of a distance separation. I think that something like that would be
sufficient at this point.
Board Member Hoffmann - A strip of grass was mentioned.
Chairperson Wilcox - A strip of grass was mentioned, but something that provides some distance
separation between the vehicles, including buses and students who are young and therefore don't
51
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
drive very well or drive faster than they should or pedestrians. Feelings on the road? Oil and stone?
What we have is asphalt would be better. We might be able to phrase that so ... how do you phrase
that though? You could put in oil and stone, but only if it is going to be used for less than two years.
Attorney Barney - No. I think you say oil and stone, but if no application of a modification of the
location of the roadway is presented within two years of the final approval that asphalt be installed.
Mr. Hebdon - Could we put in that asphalt be installed per Town Engineer's requirements? So that
we get to review exactly what asphalt is going in there and how much.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions with regard to site plan? Comments from staff? You've
been quiet over there except for the Assistant Town Engineer. Planning staff has been unusually
quiet tonight.
Mr. Kanter - That's because all you talked about was drainage.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the draft resolution for preliminary... Mr. Yntema
you mentioned something. This is for preliminary approval. You then have to go to the Zoning Board
of Appeals. The date would be next month. If you are at the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 17th
then it would be sometime after that that you would come back to this board.
Mr. Smith - June 18th is the next Planning Board meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox - So they could be back before us before June 18th. Then construction could
start after that. At best, construction could start in two months, eight weeks. I think there was some
concern that it could happen in four weeks.
Mr. Harding - My understanding was the work on the swale has been bid or is in the process of being
bid.
Mr. Salm - It is in the process of being bid.
Mr. Harding - That work has already been approved. It could start within two or three weeks.
Chairperson Wilcox - The draft resolution says that stormwater facilities as part of this project will be
constructed prior to work on the road and the walkway. Someone like to move the motion? So
moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by ... chair will second it. Mr. Barney, you wrote a couple of
changes?
Attorney Barney - The only change that I got was for if no application was made for modification of
special approval for relocating the roadway within two years from final approval of the Zoning Board
of Appeals the surface is to be changed to asphalt, the plans for which to and approved by the Town
Director of Engineering before installation begins. That would be inserted for paragraph b.
Chairperson Wilcox - Creig, you are comfortable with that?
52
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Hebdon - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'd like to add a paragraph g, which says "submission of revised plans to show a
distance separation along between the pedestrian pathway and the road along with some tire length."
We're focusing in on that hundred -foot strip. How do we best describe that ... a distance separation
between the walkway and the roadway?
Attorney Barney - Over the 100 feet immediately opposite the detention facilities.
Chairperson Wilcox - Changes acceptable, Rod?
Board Member Howe - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - What about maintenance of stormwater detention facilities? What did we do
with College Circle? Did we say?
Mr. Smith - They had maintenance plan included.
Chairperson Wilcox - Submission of a maintenance plan for approval by...
Mr. Smith - The Town Engineer.
Chairperson Wilcox - I would like to add that as well, consistent with College Circle. The minutes will
pass along Planning Board's comments to Dan. I think the other thing was lighting design details.
Submittal for the one.
Mr. Harding - I meant to bring a photograph of that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Tom, yes sir.
Mr. Salm - (Comments not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - The concern is being up hill and Mr. Yntema and others being down hill.
Acceptable? All right.
Attorney Barney - When do you want this maintenance plan? As part of final?
Chairperson Wilcox - Does anyone remember what we did with College Circle?
Mr. Smith - I think it was before building permit.
Chairperson Wilcox - To be approved by Town Engineer. It seems to be consistent with what we
decided before.
Mr. Kanter - I just wanted to mention one thing real quickly that Andy Frost mentioned. Today in
conjunction with the renovation of Phase I of College Circle, his thinking is that he is interested in
67N
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
having some kind of an emergency access connection through to where the connector road is going
during the time that there is going to be some construction equipment in and around the Phase I
portion which is pretty much the area around the entrance road. So he may actually as part of the
permit for that be requiring some kind of consideration for that type of connection. That means there
would have to be some kind of a temporary connection between Ithaca College and College Circle. It
really doesn't have anything to do with the actual final plans of the connector road, but I thought I
would mention to you that Andy was concerned about the need to have possibly some kind of a
second access connection. I think he is trying to work out some of the details with the College Circle
applicants. Just so you are aware if something like that does happen, and I'm not sure that you will, it
is not going to be in conflict with what you are approving. It may be in addition to it, a temporary
solution to it.
Chairperson Wilcox - He is worried about a single access point to that for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Kanter - Basically, for emergency vehicles if there is blockage at the entrance drive.
Chairperson Wilcox - This would be during construction?
Mr. Kanter - During the rehab of Phase I and I guess when Phase I is done and new students move in
to Phase I there is going to be construction beginning up in Phase 11.
Chairperson Wilcox - Then presumably we have the connector road.
Mr. Kanter - Then the connector road will be ready at some point.
Chairperson Wilcox - To provide that secondary access point. Okay.
Mr. Kanter - That was more of an informational comment.
Chairperson Wilcox - There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying
aye.
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - Against? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed 5 nothing.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -052 - Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Ithaca College Connector Road, Danby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a
N
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca
College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15.
The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities
including a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate
the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on May 21, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate for preliminary approval, plans titled "Topographic Map" (sheets 1 -3) and "Boundary
and Topographic Map," dated 212612002, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., "Overall Site Plan"
(sheet L -1), "Demolition Plan" (sheet L -2), "Grading & Utility Plan — South and Details" (sheet
L -3), "Grading & Utility Plan — North and Details" (sheet L -4), "Site Details" (sheet L -5), "Layout
Plan — South" (sheet L -6), "Layout Plan — North" (sheet L -7) dated April 1, 2002, prepared by
QPK Design, "Campus Road Network Map" (sheet X -1) and "Landscaping Plan" (sheet X -2),
dated April 15, 2002, prepared by QPK Design, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the checklist, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control
nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the
proposed connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca
College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, as shown on plans titled
"Topographic Map" (sheets 1 -3) and "Boundary and Topographic Map," dated 212612002,
prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., "Overall Site Plan" (sheet L -1), "Demolition Plan" (sheet L -2),
"Grading & Utility Plan — South and Details" (sheet L -3), "Grading & Utility Plan — North and
Details" (sheet L -4), "Site Details" (sheet L -5), "Layout Plan — South" (sheet L -6), "Layout Plan —
North" (sheet L -7) dated April 1, 2002, prepared by QPK Design, "Campus Road Network Map"
(sheet X -1) and "Landscaping Plan" (sheet X -2), dated April 15, 2002, prepared by QPK Design,
and other application material, subject to the following conditions:
a. granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to Final Site Plan
Approval;
b. if no application is made for modification of the special approval for relocating the
roadway within two years from final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the
surface be changed to asphalt, the plans for the action to be submitted and approved by
the Town Director of Engineering before installation begins;
619
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
C. submission of revised Grading & Utility Plan to include piping the flow from above the
athletic fields to the new detention basin and elimination of the proposed diversion
structure at the south end of the connector road, prior to Final Site Plan Approval;
d. submission of a construction phasing plan prior to Final Site Plan Approval, including
indication that the proposed stormwater facilities shall be constructed prior to work on
the road and walkway;
e. submission of evidence of NYS Department of Transportation conceptual approval of
stormwater management plan, prior to Final Site Plan Approval;
f. submission of easement language to ensure access between the Ithaca College
campus and College Circle Apartments for review and approval of the Attorney for the
Town prior to Building Permit;
g. submission of revised plans to show separation of the roadway from the walkway over
the 100 feet adjacent to the detention facilities;
h. submission of a drainage facility maintenance plan to Town Director of Engineering to
be approved prior to issuance of any building permits;
submission of lighting details to the Board for approval as part of the final site plan
approval process.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation regarding Special Approval to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the
applicant;
b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project;
C. the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
6701
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Blanchard Three -Lot Subdivision, 165 East King Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 11:17 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think you might be best by telling us what is different now versus what we
approved previously.
George Blanchard, 165 E King Road - I'm the owner of the property. You should have two survey
maps in front of you. The one with the very straight line down the middle between parcel a and parcel
b is what you approved last month. The second on stamped April 24, 2002 in the right hand side is
what the actual survey came out to be that was done after the approval. When these were submitted
to the Town, Jonathan noted the differences. I guess there is an issue that even though the intent is
the same, if there are changes of any size or shape the clerk can't record them so I'm back again. If
you look at the two of them you'll see that the intent is exactly the same. Parcel c has a minor lot
change because the actual survey stake is five feet different from what was proposed. We wanted to
use existing stakes than creating new ones. Hopefully, avoiding something like the second
conversation you had tonight on the agenda. The lot line between b and a is on a diagonal now.
That is because the barn on the proposed map...
Chairperson Wilcox - How did the barn move?
Mr. Blanchard - The storm we had Monday, shifted it. That is the actual survey now ... the field
survey. It located that barn. I said to avoid any future issues down the road with multiple land owners
lets not put the line right up against the barn, so we put it on a little bit of a diagonal. Those are the
changes. The intent is the same. That's it.
Chairperson Wilcox - I know that everybody is in a hurry to get out of here and I understand that, but
the surveyor Stockman Surveying and it looks like James Stockman signed it. He has signed both of
them, the prior one and the final one. Both certifying that they are correct.
Mr. Blanchard - The first one was certified. It should have a draft on it probably. It was based on
guidelines I thought I understood that you had to have something from a surveyor to even come to
the first meeting. I later found out that a sketch map was...
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there anything else that was changed?
Mr. Blanchard - Nothing.
Chairperson Wilcox - I move the SEQR motion.
Board Member Howe - Second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded. All those in favor?
57
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -053 - SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Blanchard Three -Lot Subdivision, 165 East King Road, Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
three -lot subdivision located at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7,
Residence District R -30. This is a revision of a previously submitted subdivision that was
approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on March 19, 2002. The revised proposal,
which involves modifications of the lot lines and sizes as compared with the previous proposal,
is to subdivide the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into three lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.789
+/- acres (Parcel A) and 7.163 +/- acres (Parcel C) and a 8.240 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B)
which contains an existing residence. George and Dawn Blanchard, Owners / Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by
the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Lands of George E. Blanchard, 165 East King
Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by R. James Stockwin,
Licensed Land Surveyor, dated April 10, 2002, and other application materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment
Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
611.01
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed three -lot subdivision located at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
44. -2 -7, Residence District R -30. This is a revision of a previously submitted subdivision that
was approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. The revised proposal, which involves
modifications of the lot lines and sizes as compared with the previous proposal, is to
subdivide the 24.152 ± acre parcel into three lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.789 ±
acres (Parcel A) and 7.163 ± acres (Parcel C) and a 8.240 ± acre parcel (Parcel B) which
contains an existing residence. George and Dawn Blanchard, Owners /Applicants.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 11:20 p.m. With no persons present to be heard,
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 11:22 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there any further discussion with regard to subdivision? Would someone like
to move the motion for subdivision approval?
Board Member Conneman - I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by George. Do I have a second?
Board Member Mitrano - I'll second it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there any further discussion?
Attorney Barney - This one now has the condition in the prior one about obtaining the lot width
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think last night they met and reaffirmed their approval.
So don't know if we want to include this condition or not at this juncture.
Mr. Kanter - I think based upon your recommendation we could probably strike it.
Chairperson Wilcox - They had to make a determination...
Attorney Barney - If their special approval was affected by the revised...
Chairperson Wilcox - And they made such a determination?
Attorney Barney - They did.
Chairperson Wilcox - So therefore, clause 2a may go away. Those changes acceptable?
Board Member Mitrano - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other changes? Any further discussion? All those in favor please signal by
saying aye.
Board - Aye.
=0
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are no abstentions. Motion is passed. Good night.
Thank you, sir.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -054 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Blanchard
Three -Lot Subdivision, 165 East King Road, Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Tracy Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed
three -lot subdivision located at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7,
Residence District R -30. This is a revision of a previously submitted subdivision that was
approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on March 19, 2002. The revised proposal,
which involves modifications of the lot lines and sizes as compared with the previous proposal,
is to subdivide the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into three lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.789
+/- acres (Parcel A) and 7.163 +/- acres (Parcel C) and a 8.240 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B)
which contains an existing residence. George and Dawn Blanchard, Owners/ Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on May 21, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part
11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 21, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a survey map entitled "Lands of George E. Blanchard, 165 East King Road, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by R. James Stockwin, Licensed Land
Surveyor, dated April 10, 2002, and other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed three lot subdivision at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7,
as shown on a survey map entitled "Lands of George E. Blanchard, 165 East King Road, Town
of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, " prepared by R. James Stockwin, Licensed Land
Surveyor, dated April 10, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
11011]
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
a. Submission of evidence of any necessary approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers prior to any fill or disturbance of wetlands that have been identified on this
site, as shown in Department of the Army Application No. 94- 998 - 16(1), and
b. Submission of evidence of County Health Department approval of any on -site water
supply and /or septic systems, prior to issuance of any building permits for Parcels A and
C of this subdivision,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any parkland reservation created by this proposed
subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any parkland reservation, as long as there is no
further subdivision of the subject site. If lots are proposed to be subdivided from Parcels A, B or C in
the future, then the Planning Board reserves the right to consider the reservation of park land, or fees
in lieu thereof, based on the size of each of the individual Parcels (A, B, or C).
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
Mr. Yntema - I was just speaking with Tom Salm and he said that the drainage swale and the
drainage pipe insulation had already been approved. I was not aware of that. In the resolution of
April 5t , it said that it had to be done first, but I didn't understand that it was approval of it being done.
If that is the case that it was approved, then I wasted your time and my time tonight coming to tell you
it was too small.
Mr. Kanter - That was approved as part of the...
Chairperson Wilcox - John, you haven't wasted our time.
Mr. Yntema - Well, if I tell you it is too small and it is already been approved it's a waste of time.
Chairperson Wilcox - If you're wrong once or twice, the other information that you have provided us
has been valuable and I appreciate it.
Mr. Yntema - Do they need a permit to do this? Can you go out and dig a ditch and put a pipe in it
and you don't need a permit?
Mr. Kanter - It needs engineering okay as it's installed. I don't know if it requires a building permit.
Me
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
Mr. Yntema - I think it would have been kind of nice to be notified. Thank you. Nothing else.
Chairperson Wilcox - All set, John. Thank you, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment at 11:24 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 7, 2002.
Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. Vote did not pass, 3 -0 -1.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Chairperson Wilcox - The spring Planning Forum in front of you. Most of you probably got that at
home. Someone mentioned Town ID cards. We hadn't heard about that. Is the Town issuing ID
cards to people like Planning Board members?
Mr. Kanter - They took photos.
Chairperson Wilcox - Not of us.
Mr. Kanter - They took photos of staff. I assume at some point someone would approach you about
it.
Mr. Smith - We could probably do it at one of the Planning Board meetings if you want to do it before
or after. That is what we did with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Chairperson Wilcox - Again, this is to address the issue where when a site plan, subdivision or other
plan comes before us, the owner gives us the right by making the submission to walk the property
and see it. It is sometimes nice to have a some sort of Town ID for when the owner comes out and
asks you what you are doing trespassing you can tell them who are and have sort of identification.
Board Member Hoffmann - I actually thought about this today when I was up at Ithaca College. I was
driving around slowly, stopping and looking at things. As I was leaving the parking lot up by this new
connector road a police car came up there. It struck me right away that somebody probably reported
a weird car going around slowly.
Chairperson Wilcox - When we were doing College Circle I called Tom Salm because it was College
Circle not Ithaca College's property. I asked if I could drive up into the K -Lot extension or whatever it
is and go onto your property and see what is it from the other side. We will get more information on
that. Do you have any other business?
Mr. Kanter - I will not be here at the June 4t" meeting. I will be on vacation. Go ahead and have the
meeting anyway. Just to bring to your attention, I think you will get copies of this revised memo on
the GML procedures. Just take a look at that. It is mostly for staff to think about. There is one
change in it real quick. It has to do with if there is a negative determination and where we need the
Me
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
MAY 21, 2002
is APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2002 - APPROVED
majority plus one vote to override the negative declaration, we also need to file a report with the
County as to why we decided to override it. So that is really more of a clarification, not a change.
Chairperson Wilcox - We should have been doing that all along?
Mr. Kanter Yeah. They say that simply the minutes of the meeting can handle that, except that we
would need in that case say something in the minutes that could reflect why it is we're specifically not
following their recommendation. Generally, we do that, but maybe not as directly as we could.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you all done?
Mr. Kanter - Yup.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else? I have to thank Creig for filling in tonight. Thank you very much.
I knew you were going to be important to this meeting. I think you knew you were going to be
important to this meeting. You answered the questions. You answered truefully and that's all we can
ask. I appreciated. Again, I think it is the first time I have had the pleasure of having you sit here.
Mr. Hebdon - it is my first.
Chairperson Wilcox - We'll tell Dan that he can take more vacations.
*A ENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 21, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:29 p.m.
0
Respectfully submitted:
Carrie Whitmore,
Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes
Lori Quigley,
Deputy Town Clerk
63
f
Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, 21 May 2002
Testimony of John Yntema
Knammy One
My name is John Yntema. I live at 993 Danby Road, in the Town of Ithaca, just
west of the proposed College Circle connector road.
Included with the March 12th Phase 2 College Circle documents, was a letter
from Ithaca College's Carl Sgrecci, committing the College to several things,
among them specifying that the connector road would be used by trucks
removing excavated material from College Circle.
Now, obviously, the destination for this material is to be the northeast
corner of the Ithaca College campus, with 22,000 cubic yards involved. At 10
cubic yards per truckload, that's 4,400 trips -- one each way. I expect that
would damage the connector road if it were to be used for that purpose.
We various connector road neighbors already have heavy duty traffic passing
on Danby Road (Route 96b), in FRONT of our homes. Using the connector road
for the dump trucks would give us all a second big dose of heavy duty traffic
BEHIND our homes. That seems burdensome.
As I will testify later, at the Connector Road hearing, the connector road
actually shouldn't be built until AFTER the proposed drainage ditch (swale)
and drainage pipe (culvert) are in place, and THAT design needs rethinking.
• For these reasons, I trust you will see that the dump trucks would
use another route, and not the proposed connector road.
Thank you.
Iwachnw2 4 -�t 1
Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, 21 May 2002
Testimony of John Yntema
My name is John Yntema. I live in what I'm beginning to think of as a
continuous floodplain, at 993 Danby Road, in the Town of Ithaca.
I have some serious concerns about the proposed connector Road, and
believe it has been proposed in the wrong order of construction. I have
handed out copies of some photographs. Please don't be side - tracked by
them, before I get to explaining them, at the end of my testimony.
1. Included with the March 12th Phase 2 College Circle documents, was a
letter from Ithaca College's Carl Sgrecci, committing the College to several
things, including construction of the stormwater drainage system, shown on
Sheet C -108, BEFORE construction activity begins for Phase 2 at College
Circle (my emphasis)., I asked that you include that requirement in the
resolution which you approved on April 3rd, and you did, although probably
because Mr. Walker, the Town Engineer, insisted on it.
2. That April 3rd Planning Board Resolution stated that: "Construction of
the drainage channel and culvert shown on Sheet C503 [is] to be completed
to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering, prior to the beginning of
any other site work that will divert water to such channel and culvert."
This channel and culvert are also indicated on the last untitled sheet
accompanying the "Stormwater Analysis" for the Connector Road.
Because the connector road is sloped down on both sides of its centerline,
runoff from the road will flow both east and west. The westerly runoff,
south of the headwall, is going to drain into the drainage channel. It is obvious
that the resolution does not allow this.
What is the solution? Only one possibility seems to abide by the resolution,
and apparently was intended, by this board, to be THE construction priority.
• Install the drainage channel and a properly -sized culvert before the
1* connector road is built. More about this later.
i
Yntema to Planning Board
(IC Connector Road)
21 May 2002
3. AFTER the drainage channel and properly-sized culvert are installed,
some connector road problems still remain.
A. Because the road will be paved, there will be increased westerly
runoff, SOUTH of the headwall, flowing into the proposed drainage channel
and culvert, than is now the case.
2
B. Also because the road will be paved, connector road westerly
runoff, NORTH of the headwall, will also increase. No provision for mitigating
this seems to have been made. This particular point is important to both me
and my neighbor to the north, Ms. Robinson, who was unable to be present
tonight. Even NOT including runoff that NOW passes from Mr. Kirschman's
property to mine, my property already becomes flooded just from water
coming down from Ithaca College property that is NORTH of the headwall. I
am not alone: for the first time EVER, Ms. Robinson had 6" of water in her
basement after the rain on May 13th.
C. What are possible solutions to these problems?
9 The simplest solution, though ONLY for connector road runoff, would
be to slope the entire connector road down to the EAST, and channel that
runoff into the proposed detention pond, as was already planned for water
running off the east side of the connector road.
• Some method of diverting the current and heavy westerly runoff
from the entire westerly College property NORTH of the headwall and up to
the north end of the connector road should be considered . Perhaps another
drainage channel, on Ithaca College property, should be designed to collect all
this westerly runoff and divert it to another detention basin north of Ms.
Robinson's property, so neither of us would be flooded from that source
again. That doesn't seem too much to expect.
• No doubt the Planning Board can determine other solutions.
Yntema to Planning Board
(IC Connector Road)
21 May 2002
3
4. This may be the only time I can explain what appears to me to be a major
flaw in the drainage channel and drainage pipe /culvert design.
Mr. Sieverding kindly arranged for me to meet, on February 22nd, with him,
Ithaca College staff, and others involved with the College Circle project. At
that time, I was told that a 24" diameter pipe was considered adequate for
the stormwater being carried from the headwall to Danby Road. I suggested
that size was probably too small, so they agreed to enlarge it.
On sheet C503, dated March 22nd, you will note
drainage pipe, or culvert, (the "Hope storm pipe
Danby Road, is designated as being 30" in diame
increase over the 24" size originally thought to
some pictures during the very recent May 13th
still woefully inadequate.
that the 387 feet of
"), from the headwall to
ter. Indeed, this i,5 an
be sufficient. However, I took
rain, as evidence that 30" is
I've provided you with three pairs of pictures, taken by the CMP Arch (CMP =
Corrugated Metal Pipe), at the bottom of my driveway. This pipe is supposed
to carry the stormwater that will come down the drainage pipe /culvert
between the Kirschman and Yntema properties, to, and then under, Danby
Road, towards the west..
The left-hand photographs were actually taken on May 15th, when most of
the runoff from College Circle had subsided. The right hand pictures were
taken during the May 13th rain, and clearly show huge amounts of water
coming off the Kirschman and Yntema properties, down the roadside ditch,
and then overflowing the top of the CMP Arch.
The pictures clearly show that the CMP Arch is more than flooded; water is
coming over the concrete wall, 18" ABOVE where the Arch is embedded. The
cross section of the elliptical Arch (33 "h x 49 "w) is about 1,270 in2. The
cross section of the proposed 30" drainage pipe is about 707 in2. Thus, the
proposed 30" drainage pipe has a cross section of only 55'% of what the CMP
Arch can barely handle. The 30" pipe couldn't possibly contain the amount of
stormwater flowing during a relatively small rainfall of 1 "- 2 ", such as we
had on May 13th. * **
The only way the drainage pipe /culvert, from the headwall to Danby Road,
could at least match what the CMP Arch can barely handle, would be if it has
a diameter of at least 40.2 ".
Yntema to Planning Board 21 May 2002 4
(IC Connector Road)
Using a 30" pipe would mean that there would be flooding at the headwall, and
my property and my garage would continue to be flooded, and the damage to
our several stone retaining walls would worsen even more. I hope you will not
allow that to happen again.
From the topo maps, I can't calculate the cross section of the drainage ditch
leading to the headwall, but I trust you will be sure that it far exceeds the
cross sectional area of a 40 " pipe, especially since sediment and weeds, and
maybe some trash, will partially fill the ditch. If the ditch is too small,
flooding will continue to occur, and I'm sure you want to avoid that.
Thank you.
------------------------- - - - - --
* ** For those who think 1 " to 2" is a lot of rain, I would mention that, during
the decades I lived in the Virgin Islands, I frequently recorded more than 15"
of rain in 24 hours, when a hurricane passed by, even hundreds of miles
away. You can imagine what kind of damage that caused.
•
•
•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Quick Four -Lot Subdivision, 1564 Slaterville Road.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed four -lot subdivision located at 1564 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
56 -3 -26.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 9.228 +/- acre parcel into a
1.524 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing house and barn, and three vacant parcels of
0.490 +/- acres, 0.416 + / -, and 6.798 +/- acres. Raymond C. Quick, Owner /Applicant,
7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination, Meldrum Five -Lot Subdivision, 142 Troy Road.
7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed five -lot subdivision located at 142 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 44 -1-
5.2 and 49 -1 -26, Residence Districts R -15 and R -30 respectively. The proposal is to subdivide
the 14.985 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 44- 1 -5.2) into a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an
existing house and a 12.985 +/- acre parcel which is vacant, and to subdivide the 80.418 +/- acre
parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49 -1 -26) into three vacant parcels of 7.156 +/- acres, 3.889 +/- acres, and
69.373 +/- acres. William F. Meldrum and Betty Jane C. Meldrum, Owners; Joseph W. Allen,
Agent.
8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
with respect to a request for Special Approval for the proposal to fill and grade up to 22,000
cubic yards of material on a 2.0 +/- acre site located on the Ithaca College campus at the
southwest corner of Coddington Road and Main Campus Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 41 -1 -26 and 41 -1 -25, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to utilize 22,000 +/- cubic
yards of excavated material from the College Circle Apartments project via truck to the Ithaca
College location. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent.
8:20 P.M. SEQR Determination, Ithaca College Connector Road.
8:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a
connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca
College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15.
The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities
including a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate
the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent.
9:00 P.M. SEQR Determination, Blanchard Three -Lot Subdivision, 165 East King Road.
9:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed three -lot subdivision located at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
44 -2 -7, Residence District R -30. This is a revision of a previously submitted subdivision that
was approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. The revised proposal, which involves
modifications of the lot lines and sizes as compared with the previous proposal, is to subdivide
the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into three lots, two vacant parcels consisting of 8.789 +/- acres
(Parcel A) and 7.163 +/- acres (Parcel C) and a 8.240 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B) which contains
an existing residence. George and Dawn Blanchard, Owners /Applicants.
H. Persons to.be_heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary)._
1.2. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 2002.
13, Other Business.
14. Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT
273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
0 Tuesday, May 21, 2002
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by
the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 21, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following
times and on the following matters:
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed four -lot subdivision
located at 1564 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2, Residence District R -15. The
proposal is to subdivide the 9.228 +/- acre parcel into a 1.524 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing
house and barn, and three vacant parcels of 0.490 +/- acres, 0.416 + / -, and 6.798 +/- acres. Raymond C.
Quick, Owner /Applicant.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision
located at 142 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 44 -1 -5.2 and 49 -1 -26, Residence Districts R-
15 and R -30 respectively. The proposal is to subdivide the 14.985 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 44 -1-
5.2) into a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing house and a 12.985 +/- acre parcel which is
vacant, and to subdivide the 80.418 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49 -1 -26) into three vacant parcels of
7.156 +/- acres, 3.889 +/- acres, and 69.373 +/- acres. William F. Meldrum and Betty Jane C. Meldrum,
Owners; Joseph W. Allen, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special
Approval for the proposal to fill and grade up to 22,000 cubic yards of material on a 2.0 +/- acre site
located on the Ithaca College campus at the southwest corner of Coddington Road and Main Campus
• Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -26 and 41 -1 -25, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to
utilize 22,000 +/- cubic yards of excavated material from the College Circle Apartments project via truck
to the Ithaca College location. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent.
8:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a connector road between the College Circle
Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca. College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41-
1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway,
stormwater facilities including a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to
accommodate the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent.
9:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision
located at 165 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7, Residence District R -30. This is a
revision of a previously submitted subdivision that was approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
The revised proposal, which involves modifications of the lot lines and sizes as compared with the
previous proposal, is to subdivide the 24.152 +/- acre parcel into three lots, two vacant parcels consisting
of 8.789 +/- acres (Parcel A) and 7.163 +/- acres (Parcel C) and a 8.240 +/- acre parcel (Parcel B) which
contains an existing residence. George and Dawn Blanchard, Owners /Applicants.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impainments or other special needs, will be
provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48
hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
•
Dated: Monday, May 13, 2002
Publish: Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
J
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
CORRECTED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
9 Tuesday, May 21, 2002
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by
the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 21, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following
time and on the following matter. The previously published hearing notice did not include a full description of the existing
zoning.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed five -lot subdivision
located at 142 Troy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 44 -1 -5.2 and 49 -1 -26, Residence Districts R-
15 and R -30 respectively. The proposal is to subdivide the 14.985 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 44 -1-
5.2) into a 2.0 +/- acre parcel which contains an existing house and a 12.985 +/- acre parcel which is
vacant, and to subdivide the 80.418 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 49 -1 -26) into three vacant parcels of
7.156 + -/- acres, 3.889 +/- acres, and 69.373 +/- acres. William F. Meldrum and Betty Jane C. Meldrum,
Owners; Joseph W. Allen, Agent,
Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be
provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48
hours prior to the time of the public hearing.
*Dated: Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Publish: Thursday, May 16, 2002
•
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
•
•
The Ithaca Journal
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
By direction of the
Chairperson of the Planning
Board, NOTICE 15 HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning
Board of the Town 'of Ithaca
on Tuesday, May 21, 20021
at 215 North Tlogo Street,!
Ithaco, N.Y., at the following)
times and on the following,
matters-
7:40 P.M, Consideration ofi
Preliminary and Final Sub-
division Approval for the
proposed fovrlot subdivi -
sion located at 1564'
Slaterville Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
56-3 -26.2, Residence Dis-
trict R -15. The proposal is to P
subdivide the 9.228 +/
acre parcel into a 1.524 +/-
acre parcel which contains
an existing house and loam,
and three vacant parcels of
'0.490 +/- acres, 0.416 + / -,
and 6.798 +/- acres. Roy.
mond C. Quick, Owner/
Appplicant.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Sub-
division Approval for they
Poposed five -lot subdivision
aaated at 142 Troy Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 44.1 -5.2 and
49 -1.26, Residence District'.
R -30. The proposal is to sub-
divide the 14.985 +/- acre
parcel (Tax Parcel No.
44.1 -52) into a 2.0 + / -"
acre parcel which contains
an existing house and a
12.985 +/- acre parcel
which is vacant, and to sub
divide the 80.418 +/- acre
parcel (Tax Parcel No.
49 -1 -26) into three vacant
parcels of 7.156 +/- acres,
3.889 +/- acres, and
69.373 +/- acres. William'
F. Meldrum and Betty Jane
C. Meldrum, Owners; Jo-1
seph W. Allen, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of'
a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals
with respect to a request for
Special Approval for the
proposal to fill and grade up'
to 22,000 cubic yards of
material on a 2.0 +/- ocre I
site located on the Ithaca
College campus at the
southwest corner of Coddin-
gton Road and Main'
Campus Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s
41 -1 -26 and 41 -1 -25, Resi-
dence District R -15. The pro-
posol is to utilize 22,000 i
+/- cubic ,yards of ex
coveted material from the
'College Circle Apartments
project via truck to the Ithaca
College location. Ithaca Col-
lege Owner- QPK Design, I
;Applicant David A. Her -
;ding Aggent.
'8:35 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary Site Plan Aft I
proval. and a recommends -
Ition to the Zoning Board of
Appeals regarding Special
Approval for the proposed
construction of o connector
road between the College
Circle Apartments and L -lot
Parking area at Ithaca Col -
ege, town of Ithaca Tax Par-
ice 42 -1 -13.2 and
41.1 -30.2, Residence Dis-
trict R -15. The project in-
volves construction of a 590
+/- foot road, a walkway, ,
stormwater facilities includ-
ing a new detention basin,
and modifications to the ex-
istin i parking lot to accom-
modate the new road.
IIthaca College, Owner;
QPK Design, Applicant; Da-
vid A. Harding, Agent.
9:05 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Sub-
division Approval for the
proposed three -lot subdivi-
sion located at 165 East
King Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 44 -2 -7 Resi-
dence District R -30. This is a
revision of a previously
submitted subdivision that
was approved by the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board.
The revised proposal, which
involves modifications of the
lot lines and sizes as com-
pared with the previous pro -
posol, is to subdivide the
24.152 +/- acre parcel into
three lots, two vacant par-
celsk consisting of 8.789 +/-
acres (Parcel A) and 7.163
+/- acres (Parcel C) and a
8.240 +/- acre parcel (Par-
cel B) which contains an ex-
isting residence. George
and Down Blanchard,
Owners /Applicants.
;Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place
1 hear all persons in support
of such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent- or in person.
Individuals with visual
impairments, hearing
impairments or other special
needs, will be provided with
assistance as 'necessary,
upon request. Persons desir-
ing assistance must make
such a request not less than
48 hours prior to the time of
i the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
I Director of Planning
273.1747
I Dated: Monday,
May 13, 2002
Moy 15, 2002 __-
•
•
The Ithaca Journal
Thursday,. May 16, 2002
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
CORRECTED NOTICE OF)
PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, May 21; 2002
By direction of the,
Chairperson of the Plonningi
Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY,
GIVEN that a Public Hearing
will be held by the Planning'
Board of the Town of Ithaca.
on Tuesda , May 21, 2002,
at 215 Nyorth Tiogga Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the 'following
time and on the following
`matter. The previously pub-
lished hearing notice did not
include a fulr description of
the existing zoning.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of,
Preliminary and Final Sub-
division Approval for the
proposed five -lot subdivision
located at 142 Troy Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 44 -1.5.2 and
49 -1 -26, Residence Districts
R -15 and R -30 respective)y.
,The ,proposal is to subdivide
the 14.985 +/- acre parcel
(Tax Parcel No. 44.1.5.21
into a 2.0 +/- acre parcel
which contains an existingg
house and a. 12.985 +/-
acre parcel which is vacant,
and to subdivide the 80.418
+/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel
No. 49.1 -26) into.three va-
cant 'parcels of 7.156 +/.
acres, 3.889 +/- acres, and
69.373 +/- acres. William
F. Meldrum and Betty Jane
C. Meldrum, Owners; Jo-
seph W. Allen, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at
said time and said place
hear all persons in support
of such matter or objections
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual
impairments, hearing
impairments or other special
needs, will be provided with
assistance as necessary,
+upon request. Persons desir-
ing assistance must make
'such a request not less than
;48 hour's prior to the time of
'the public hearing. J
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning'
1 273 -1747
Dated: Wednesday, May I
05, 2002May 16, 2002
t
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: May 21, 2002
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
L-j
(L
Po r36ry 1 ? .
/j" L p ajo ��
!✓ / t/ i
40 r Kr"VI
3014
2,Awk ds
12 rl o Qoh�
y ►hGcct i� Bs o
- se( F,
►�
`lN
a i
r i
� fr
%
k �
;kffa: c
n
17
6�
4' So 5,,A
13
d
l� L
n R�Ens
C�- z�l,���l ���/2►A
,s Z � N
Lt
L-j
(L
L
c
TOWN OF 1THACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, May 21, 2002 commencing
at 7:30 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication
•
May 13, 2002
May 15, 2002
.a. Gat e.�
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of May 2002.
Notary Public
CONNIE F CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No, 01CL6052878
Oualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 6Q2
Tnv.
Jaxte A l.rg.ya -�„•y s�
P .; 1r�.2 •1�' sli shK� ',{�r +0. `.�t�j� 1,,tYTt*y C��rj•. ,,,
iqw AT
Ti, At
r+• • t,' Y I•. s c�li.�T .tit-` ♦114 y °�ij^iA
l 6 'It r 77 r,1+ 31
n
3i
TC .
ililil{ ITI , r Isom 4t 7> � t
to
b
to A N.x Is piel
dr J
•'..v�� 1. l"•1 C•�I �C Tom. rY;4
I. t ,t ��Y
A.
i
JY
i'4 i
a�r
C
1r V I
I J
�tlr
Ny�
4 n i+•
7. F
All 1%
t
t
1 4 �
... +'• tlnX f.5
Xa94
i
e r{ IR
l
AAA. .I
I -.v
1
i 1
T+
ti J!y h
Y l
I tom•
• � . I �Yr'/''Y
i
♦s J
r
i
I
� 1
I
` v+
t
V
t6 �
g't
crU
.r
IAA-
��
I
pW
� -I
PIT
Ilk
e c SX :tl
r
i
JY
i'4 i
a�r
C
1r V I
I J
�tlr
Ny�
4 n i+•
7. F
All 1%
t
t
1 4 �
... +'• tlnX f.5
Xa94
i
e r{ IR
l
AAA. .I
I -.v
1
i 1
T+
ti J!y h
Y l
I tom•
• � . I �Yr'/''Y
i
♦s J
r
i
I
� 1
I
` v+
t
V
t6 �
5�;,aT`
L"r ;•
-..
% N.
w
t � \ -
��;.
\ ;i I'-d`%
r T tJt�
\eF
1 Ik r'a.A�.�
It i r y„
+\
i
1
r r' *:
At
ti•,
sA
5 e N. a' d A 1
-qtr yjI �yas
r
t!t , y\ \'++x,• -+ ,, `i ��ir i . �;..'
n -�j�K- +,71f ;rj - •.�#,+.Cj w-, I. R L.� _ fir• `�rR' w ' Yid �,��'.''i Li ,y'K�r *'N,.�' .
ITT , 0.t ,li <`.•, ,ertU �I AT,
Y
...y r ` ♦. t - w..` it
1� "'v Is tR_.• O ♦ 1"7vi'� tF., aF Q` ti <..e' vy'nF'w.�, "'1,'_• .r^ _
:{ }' • d ..1 "t:`1 �_ - '� ".. t rt
I 4 - ♦ -^¢� - .rte f a roWr�
mi. IT: tt% "M1' .Rh. .� �. �ti a.. .; 3. bra1...�_.. OJT•
Astor
It
r1v ♦ It'• w ".G �. 1,.. _ R \ t • t r �✓' t , r 4 r
it
fa' � S.�' -' _ (J n '\ �k, >`+ C i _ rw `� j•`7 '7
�y.``�y u•t 'ti._ ••. {SIG .7
too
r3•C;?'fG�^rya •o Rnr •, "sa
f JYi 4' .";I, 'tr l.Y"'i ['p; �
gwR,•,y4 ,,,[ R .S, \+i i•7a! 1' "� In -i� , • rl. {� + 1 „/
�lzy a
it I
In 4u .27..x�"i .b ti A ! i
-to lii;S• tai y. k >'y - --i +wh,,. r."r f .r. .'� roe r?•-. l 41 Ali
CIA-
w tri y .
:, N
!X ;
It
r
1
w Lem• 1, w-'t�
14 1- 1
Ppppp
AT
CZ
It A
ALAI
Sa�ra� 7 O j� 4
S. /y� i�.. v�TY��vn wt.i �?n. _ h� �- �,''�•�'�hk ! ��."L _
•�
rri: is ,K \�{tt. �• �\ + . ,! \ "� -v it
�. •f.. ��u�r ir •3l'�'�.r' -+ - �' .'ms`s
�iZZ 1 .. J ..
c
r..!'St tip'` • 5 , ..... ,, I" Ii�A-AIIA It
t
AT It I
T.
•-.,r`° i ,\ \:'. ° ! 'c'1`'.,h J ''yw+ "Y h r 1^t♦t {G �A'r t 1'.
l�d
+`•�..h 7 - `Tn•"Ua y' )}`, , r�'K'iJ,r?. til / ti C ,
PIAT, A. �: ei• y t� ♦. �jot". C 1. Lit , ♦ t'�v, ..� ,�aT j s f . I AAA
t '�J a O A `.t - �`,- I }QL4x} e.'o w t.
•" / .J<i'1�.'=- r fir, S rr _ -.•„� 1
_l'^
olitI \.� lr s �4tY r :` "l''tl• a .i,r \ f °.. i•x '.
TATI- It
,,qxZ Volt S , p j 1`41, ,Ire h� 21 \a l✓..•`v •` �,>^I ^- "aw.i+' /w� c 5 \`-
qZIIIII A.
t�.r5��"'' -`t•.' �ly..,,`4h�.." `tl . il^ p \tip".{ 1, <T` ty,r yin, Y VP?
1^� i.•�, [5' C�v ' Vie,' - ! t�,r p^^ \`i7 -fit ^ ^1'^.`K• `ji. S�.,J{ :.> 1
: s h� ,. \. +ti J 'AI -..' mod+- •. . f I
: ���i,•�raw A ,Y. II i .'\`"' '"'�% �• : _ ` 1 'd 1•t . y'L. r% `minis zF ..a �• teK�r `.,,,� ,%T+! TV
+ ; ._-�V"^'- .1�'"'? •'S, 5� '�,�,. , rte, , - 1 i r , r*�r'� '
Ji. r`t• • • 1 Jam. \. •.rq / N - ✓ "•L c� J C I' qI
,i:.I ��•l c ',- "!:. `w� /.!a hfi hl : -•��. 11 r ��� Yv- .
}�ZX .,} ''4Y, r«FC @"he�`•l q. �,• '3. d• a.• y'v-� -� 1 • i:; Lt ,,,;T r 'j!T • �.,. ,,(i ^Sf
ti� ^h' q�.�VIA; T'"�+fi J,+�1ry�i�t" At n r4 I
!*" I Tt a> "fit 3♦ a �M Y _ '� 4. .' �''♦�rt r4� nl. !`
oAL
r�5� \,� l+. \• z J •'"•i' -TZ'4 ri.4{I y� \,}•
�' ! R �-j'Iire� r ✓� '4'f'- t`•:.i. `^ Z.\ ru��I i �t .\. _ ,I .1�� r ^1r 11' �t�♦+. _3"�f't
Ail Il?, '� \••t�' r� gqnrt � �' �.,f5 r,V,. ,C e� 9-�v {y .• `•, `• �` \� hI h 11` I `ryes ',1 y (` I• %T \ r{t7 ♦1 .\ Itf(; r 4 . y ♦/�%Ilt .`.J
IQr. 'IVnPW-1•� i',•+.r �ASl+ t •r c. �{"i "r•i, 'r�h�4rY. ..tTglr Awl
�vit h "a , >. ,� Qi' - 1 1 r C N {
x s \ F +"t ,`� a S,� tar ♦,F�. !'y ,t ♦i\ r p /
�^ZY r� ry l4 s.,��s5 i . .�+.. yr' AI �r„fiC� l ♦ .nn, 'r f
a \ `! 1'(♦ `It r `` Ui a t..♦ _ . �•', ! a l ,y r/ 1� A .. s t1 i at 't� 'ri7 . r r- : r j.
it r T , { Prry.. C Li4 wt I� . .. /
tI
1 \Z a &,1' f ji
�qti.
g't
crU
.r
IAA-
��
pW
� -I
h
Ilk
e c SX :tl
r
5�;,aT`
L"r ;•
-..
% N.
w
t � \ -
��;.
\ ;i I'-d`%
r T tJt�
\eF
1 Ik r'a.A�.�
It i r y„
+\
i
1
r r' *:
At
ti•,
sA
5 e N. a' d A 1
-qtr yjI �yas
r
t!t , y\ \'++x,• -+ ,, `i ��ir i . �;..'
n -�j�K- +,71f ;rj - •.�#,+.Cj w-, I. R L.� _ fir• `�rR' w ' Yid �,��'.''i Li ,y'K�r *'N,.�' .
ITT , 0.t ,li <`.•, ,ertU �I AT,
Y
...y r ` ♦. t - w..` it
1� "'v Is tR_.• O ♦ 1"7vi'� tF., aF Q` ti <..e' vy'nF'w.�, "'1,'_• .r^ _
:{ }' • d ..1 "t:`1 �_ - '� ".. t rt
I 4 - ♦ -^¢� - .rte f a roWr�
mi. IT: tt% "M1' .Rh. .� �. �ti a.. .; 3. bra1...�_.. OJT•
Astor
It
r1v ♦ It'• w ".G �. 1,.. _ R \ t • t r �✓' t , r 4 r
it
fa' � S.�' -' _ (J n '\ �k, >`+ C i _ rw `� j•`7 '7
�y.``�y u•t 'ti._ ••. {SIG .7
too
r3•C;?'fG�^rya •o Rnr •, "sa
f JYi 4' .";I, 'tr l.Y"'i ['p; �
gwR,•,y4 ,,,[ R .S, \+i i•7a! 1' "� In -i� , • rl. {� + 1 „/
�lzy a
it I
In 4u .27..x�"i .b ti A ! i
-to lii;S• tai y. k >'y - --i +wh,,. r."r f .r. .'� roe r?•-. l 41 Ali
CIA-
w tri y .
:, N
!X ;
It
r
1
w Lem• 1, w-'t�
14 1- 1
Ppppp
AT
CZ
It A
ALAI
Sa�ra� 7 O j� 4
S. /y� i�.. v�TY��vn wt.i �?n. _ h� �- �,''�•�'�hk ! ��."L _
•�
rri: is ,K \�{tt. �• �\ + . ,! \ "� -v it
�. •f.. ��u�r ir •3l'�'�.r' -+ - �' .'ms`s
�iZZ 1 .. J ..
c
r..!'St tip'` • 5 , ..... ,, I" Ii�A-AIIA It
t
AT It I
T.
•-.,r`° i ,\ \:'. ° ! 'c'1`'.,h J ''yw+ "Y h r 1^t♦t {G �A'r t 1'.
l�d
+`•�..h 7 - `Tn•"Ua y' )}`, , r�'K'iJ,r?. til / ti C ,
PIAT, A. �: ei• y t� ♦. �jot". C 1. Lit , ♦ t'�v, ..� ,�aT j s f . I AAA
t '�J a O A `.t - �`,- I }QL4x} e.'o w t.
•" / .J<i'1�.'=- r fir, S rr _ -.•„� 1
_l'^
olitI \.� lr s �4tY r :` "l''tl• a .i,r \ f °.. i•x '.
TATI- It
,,qxZ Volt S , p j 1`41, ,Ire h� 21 \a l✓..•`v •` �,>^I ^- "aw.i+' /w� c 5 \`-
qZIIIII A.
t�.r5��"'' -`t•.' �ly..,,`4h�.." `tl . il^ p \tip".{ 1, <T` ty,r yin, Y VP?
1^� i.•�, [5' C�v ' Vie,' - ! t�,r p^^ \`i7 -fit ^ ^1'^.`K• `ji. S�.,J{ :.> 1
: s h� ,. \. +ti J 'AI -..' mod+- •. . f I
: ���i,•�raw A ,Y. II i .'\`"' '"'�% �• : _ ` 1 'd 1•t . y'L. r% `minis zF ..a �• teK�r `.,,,� ,%T+! TV
+ ; ._-�V"^'- .1�'"'? •'S, 5� '�,�,. , rte, , - 1 i r , r*�r'� '
Ji. r`t• • • 1 Jam. \. •.rq / N - ✓ "•L c� J C I' qI
,i:.I ��•l c ',- "!:. `w� /.!a hfi hl : -•��. 11 r ��� Yv- .
}�ZX .,} ''4Y, r«FC @"he�`•l q. �,• '3. d• a.• y'v-� -� 1 • i:; Lt ,,,;T r 'j!T • �.,. ,,(i ^Sf
ti� ^h' q�.�VIA; T'"�+fi J,+�1ry�i�t" At n r4 I
!*" I Tt a> "fit 3♦ a �M Y _ '� 4. .' �''♦�rt r4� nl. !`
oAL
r�5� \,� l+. \• z J •'"•i' -TZ'4 ri.4{I y� \,}•
�' ! R �-j'Iire� r ✓� '4'f'- t`•:.i. `^ Z.\ ru��I i �t .\. _ ,I .1�� r ^1r 11' �t�♦+. _3"�f't
Ail Il?, '� \••t�' r� gqnrt � �' �.,f5 r,V,. ,C e� 9-�v {y .• `•, `• �` \� hI h 11` I `ryes ',1 y (` I• %T \ r{t7 ♦1 .\ Itf(; r 4 . y ♦/�%Ilt .`.J
IQr. 'IVnPW-1•� i',•+.r �ASl+ t •r c. �{"i "r•i, 'r�h�4rY. ..tTglr Awl
�vit h "a , >. ,� Qi' - 1 1 r C N {
x s \ F +"t ,`� a S,� tar ♦,F�. !'y ,t ♦i\ r p /
�^ZY r� ry l4 s.,��s5 i . .�+.. yr' AI �r„fiC� l ♦ .nn, 'r f
a \ `! 1'(♦ `It r `` Ui a t..♦ _ . �•', ! a l ,y r/ 1� A .. s t1 i at 't� 'ri7 . r r- : r j.
it r T , { Prry.. C Li4 wt I� . .. /
tI
1 \Z a &,1' f ji
�qti.