HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1994-12-20♦ -
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 20, 1994
FIr -r�
TOWN OF IT; �� ACA
Date
Clerk�l��
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, December 20, 1994, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, James Ainslie,
Herbert Finch, Stephen Smith, Jonathan Kanter (Town
Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), JoAnn
Cornish -Epps (Planner II) , Daniel Walker (Town Engineer),
John Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Mark Macera, Tom & Martha Bell, Anne Butler, Fran
Ramin,
Tom
Niederkorn,
Attorney Luciano L.
Lama,
Michael
A.
Robinson,
David W. Corson,
Douglas
Firth,
John
Yntema, Susan Brock, Jeff Stimpson,
Ethel Beck,
Carl Guy,
Noel Desch, Ronda
Engman,
Charles
W.
Brodhead,
Savino Ferrara,
Donald
Lucente,
Michael Twomey,
Virginia Bryant,
Deborah
Martin.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30
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 December 12, 1994 and December 14,
1994, respectively, upon the various neighbors of the properties
under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the Town of
Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public works, upon
the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on December 15, 19949
Chairperson Kenerson read the Fire Exit
assembled, as required by the New York State
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
Regulations to those
Department of State,
There were no persons to be heard. Chairperson
closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 6, 1994
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
Kenerson
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board Meeting of December 6, 1994, be and hereby are approved as
written.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked if Attorney Barney had stated,
"the purpose of the EIS was not to compare but to disclose and to
mitigate. At the Findings stage, you are making a comparison of
location." as shown on Page 18, Paragraph 7 of the December 6
minutes.
Planning Board Minutes 2 December 20, 1994
Attorney Barney responded that he had indeed made the
statement in question.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Finch, Ainslie, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION FOR CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING.BOARD.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the above -noted matter duly
opened at 7':33 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda.
MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Gregory Bell.
That the Planning Board defer appointing a Chairperson and
Vice -Chair for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board until the January
3, 1995 meeting due to the absence of three members of the Planning
Board at this meeting.
It was indicated that the Board, at their January 3, 1995
Meeting, would appoint Robert Kenerson as the Chair pro -tem to run
that meeting.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Smith.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Kenerson.
There being a lack of a quorum vote, the MOTION was declared
moot with no action.
PUBIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERIOR SPACE OF BELL'S
CONVENIENCE STORE, LOCATED AT 614 ELMIRA ROAD. CONSIDERATION OF
SITE PLAN IS FOR CHANGES TO THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING FROM A
CONVENIENCE STORE TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES FOR ROSCOE WOODWORKING
WHICH RENTS A 101,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL SPACE ON AN ADJACENT
PROPERTY. THIS REPRESENTS A CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
FROM C2 TO C1 UNDER THE NYS UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING
CODE, THUS REQUIRING THE APPLICATION OF THE PERTINENT BUILDING CODE
STANDARDS TO THE NEW OCCUPANCY. CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITHIN
THE BUILDING, INCLUDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM CHANGES AND CHANGES TO
THE FLOOR PLAN WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT HAVING BEEN ISSUED., WHICH
IS A REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. ARTICLE VIII,
Planning Board Minutes
3
December 20, 1994
SECTION 45 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT A
SITE PLAN APPROVAL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT. NO EXTERIOR WORK IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO. 33- 3 -2.4, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, T & M
CONVENIENCE OF ITHACA, INC., OWNER; THOMAS BELL, APPLICANT.
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened at 7:37 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted
above.
Thomas Bell addressed the Board and stated that he had
obtained a building permit prior to starting any work, so that
statement was incorrect. Mr. Bell stated that they gave a copy of
the permit to Jonathan Kanter.
Town Planner, Jonathan Kanter stated that the Building
Inspector, Andrew Frost, indicated that there were some issues that
were left to be resolved with the occupancy.
Mr. Bell stated that he had obtained a building permit for any
work that was done and that there was no change.in the floor plan.
Mr. Bell stated that all that was done was repairs to damage that
was left by the last tenant.
Planner II, JoAnn Cornish -Epps asked Mr. Bell if he had made
improvements on the property.
Mr. Bell stated that they had made improvements only from the
damage. Mr. Bell stated that he and his wife were actively trying
to sell the property as a commercial building due to hardship, they
wanted to rent it temporarily until a time of sale.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if the two buildings were located
on two separate parcels.
Mr. Bell responded, yes.
Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. No one spoke.
Chairperson Kenerson closed the public hearing and brought the
matter back to the Board for discussion.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if the underground fuel tanks on
the property would need to be removed.
Town Attorney John Barney responded, no, but that New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations require
periodical inspection.
Planning Board Minutes
L, !
December 20, 1994
Mr. Bell stated that use of the tanks would depend on the
persons interest that rents the building. Mr. Bell stated that the
tanks were not being used currently.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter asked what type of use Mr. Bell
would like to see there.
Mr.
Bell
responded that
there could be many uses for that
location,
the access
straight
but
location and
that
of the
he did not
way.
know.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if there were changes in parking
spaces.
Mr. Kanter stated that parking and circulation was a concern
of staff when viewing the site. Mr. Kanter stated that the site
plan showed 20 parking spaces, which are more spaces than needed
for office use. Mr. Kanter stated that parking spaces numbered 1,
61 7, and 13 pose problems for egress and ingress at the site. Mr.
Kanter stated that he wanted to see the circulation and access
cleaned up for smoother flow of traffic.
Board Member Stephen Smith asked about narrowing the entrance
from Mancini Road so that it comes only from Mancini Road, not
directly from Route 13.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated
that the grade change at Mancini Road would make it difficult
Mr. Walker stated that Route 13 would be better and Mancini Road.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the entrance from Mancini
Road would need to be converted to a one -way entrance only.
Mr.
Smith stated
that he wanted
to
bring
the access
straight
into the
location and
restrict the size
of the
entrance
way.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that if the future use is
not a gas station, signs would need to be removed, the canopy would
need to be removed, and the old and outdated portions of the pump
island would need to be cleaned up. Mr. Kanter stated that it
could be conditioned in the approval tonight. Mr. Kanter stated
that regarding landscaping, there needed to be more low shrubs on
the frontage for visual screening.
Mr. Walker stated that he would recommend waiting on any
landscaping improvements on the front due to a State project that
is about to occur there.
Mr. Bell stated that the State would be using a portion of the
site this year and that they have a temporary easement to park some
of the larger equipment along Mancini Road.
► '
Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Kanter stated that
approval that at the time
completed, then landscaping
December 20, 1994
the Board could attach a condition of
after Route 13 improvements were
is a required improvement.
There appearing to
be
no further
discussion, Chairperson
Kenerson asked
if anyone
were
prepared
to
offer a motion.
MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Herbert Finch.
WHEREAS:
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
the modifications to the interior space of Bell's Convenience
Store, 614 Elmira Road. Consideration of Site Plan is for
changes to the interior of the building from a convenience
store to administrative offices for Roscoe woodworking which
rents a 10,000 sq. ft. commercial space on an adjacent
property. This represents a change in occupancy from C2 to
C1, thus requiring the application of the pertinent building
code requirements to the new occupancy. Classification is in
accordance with the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building
Code. Changes have taken place within the building, including
electrical system changes and changes to the floor plan
without a building permit having been issued, which is a
requirement prior to commencement of work. Article VIII,
Section 45 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requires
that a Site Plan Approval be obtained prior to the issuance of
a Building Permit. No exterior work is proposed at this time.
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.4, Light Industrial
District, T &M Convenience of Ithaca, Inc., Owner; Thomas Bell,
Applicant.
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
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 20,
1994, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the
applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, a site
plan and additional application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance with respect to
the proposed site plan, as proposed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
i
Planning Board Minutes
rl
December 20, 1994
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.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Herbert Finch,
WHEREAS
seconded by James Ainslie.
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval for the modifications to the interior space of Bell's
Convenience Store, 614 Elmira Road. Consideration of Site
Plan is for changes to the interior of the building from a
convenience store to administrative offices for Roscoe
Woodworking which rents a 10,000 sq* ft. commercial space on
an adjacent property. This represents a change in occupancy
from C2 to C1, thus requiring the application of the pertinent
building code requirements to the new occupancy.
Classification is in accordance with the NYS Uniform Fire
Prevention and Building Code. Changes have taken place within
the building, including electrical system changes and changes
to the floor plan without a building permit having been
issued, which is a requirement prior to commencement of work.
Article VIII, Section 45 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance requires that a Site Plan Approval be obtained prior
to the issuance of a Building Permit. No exterior work is
proposed at this time. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3-
2.4, Light Industrial District, T &M Convenience of Ithaca,
Inc., Owner; Thomas Bell, Applicant.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,
has, on December 20, 1994, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 20, 1994,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I and supplemental information prepared
by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, a
site plan and additional application materials.
It
Planning Board Minutes 7 December 20, 1994
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as
shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan 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
Preliminary and Final Site
interior renovations of Bell
upon the following.
Planning Board hereby grants
Plan Approval for the proposed
's Convenience Store, conditioned
a. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the site plan
should be revised to show a more distinct parking
arrangement, restricting parking from space numbers 1, 61
7 and 13.
b. Submission of a Final Site Plan, revised to include the
conditions shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Checklist attached, for approval by the Town Planner.
c. Site Plan Approval shall be for a period of three years
at which time it shall be reviewed in light of
anticipated changes that may be made in Route 13 by the
Department of Transportation, and modified, if required
by this Board, to accommodate any altered traffic flow
resulting from the State's work.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Finch, Smith.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC SCOPING HEARING TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE
AND CONTENT OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, TO
CONSIST OF A 115,000 + /- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE
UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS,
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD (RT. 96B) APPROXIMATELY
2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE, ON THAT 28 +/-
ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 39- 1 -1.3, DESIGNATED
AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 79 ITHACARE CENTER, APPLICANT,
MARK MACERA, AGENT.
N
Planning Board Minutes 8 December 20, 1994
Chairperson Kenerson declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public
Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that this is a part of a series of
things that the Town is going through to enable Ithacare to
complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and this is a
step to determine scope and content of the EIS. Chairperson
Kenerson stated that after the EIS is completed by Ithacare there
will be findings drafted and approved, and finally, the mitigation
stage will be the action based on the Environmental Review of the
project. Chairperson Kenerson advised the members of the public
that copies of Draft 3.0 of the Scoping Outline for the Ithacare
project were on the table at the front of the board room for anyone
interested in following along. (Draft 3.0 of the Scoping Outline
for the Proposed Ithacare project is attached hereto as Exhibit #1)
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated
that Version 3.0 of the Scoping Outline was based on comments
received by the Planning Board and the applicant. Mr. Kanter
stated that the purpose of the public hearing tonight would be to
get any additional ideas of what the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) should cover. The Positive Declaration of Environmental
Significance was adopted by the Planning Board on December 6, 1994
and there is a 30 day time -frame for completing the scoping
process, so by January 5, 1995 the Board should be making its final
determination of what should be included in EIS. At that point,
once the directive is given to Ithacare to go ahead with the EIS,
the time -frame is open for as long as it takes the applicant to
complete the EIS. Mr. Kanter stated that Ithacare could come
before the Board at any time and submit the EIS and ask it to be
accepted for distribution to the public. After that happens a
public hearing would be set to accept public comments on the EIS.
Mr. Kanter stated that tonight's purpose was to obtain input from
the public on the outline that has been prepared and get final
ideas on how this process should proceed.
Chairperson
Kenerson
noted
that this
is a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone
from the
public
wished to
speak.
Michael Robinson of 248 Floral Avenue, addressed the Board and
stated that he had composed a short letter and gave it to the
secretary to be entered into the record. (Mr. Robinson's letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit #2) Mr. Robinson stated that he had
trepidations about the proposal and wanted to know what
alternatives are feasible, and that he wanted to see the details
that explain why alternatives are not feasible. Mr. Robinson
stated that the New York State Department of Transportation scenic
overlook would be very deleteriously effected.
Planning Board Minutes
4
December 20, 1994
Luciano Lama, Attorney for Donald Lucente, addressed the Board
and stated that Mr. Lucente owns property on the old Spencer Road
and the Elmira Road, and that he would like to have the property
included in the Scoping outline on Page 4, Item IV, Letter B, Sub
Item 1, letters c & d. Mr. Lama stated that the waters flow
through Mr. Lucente Is properties to get to Meadow Street and Cayuga
Street.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that he would assume it would
be included in the Scoping outline if it is an area in the city
that would be effected by the project.
John Yntema of 993 Danby Road, addressed the Board and stated
that he had prepared an outline of his comments in writing, and
that they were specifically related to the scoping outline item by
item. Mr. Yntema then gave copies of his comments to the Board to
be entered into the record. (Mr. Yntema's comments are attached
hereto as Exhibit #3)
Michael Twomey, President of Historic Ithaca, addressed the
Board and showed the Board two paintings of the views of Cayuga
Lake from South Hill. Mr. Twomey stated that he felt that the view
from the Route 96B overlook was one of the greatest views he has
seen in the Ithacare area. Mr. Twomey then summarized his concerns
to the Planning Board. (Mr. Twomey's comments are attached hereto
as Exhibit #4)
Ronda Engman of South Danby Road, addressed the Board and
stated that she wanted to thank the Town of Ithaca for deciding to
do an EIS. Ms. Engman stated that Mr. Kanter's outline was well
done. Ms. Engman stated that she had several recommendations.
1) That on Page 2, Letter C, Item 1, letter b, trails be
included in the amount of land to be cleared.
2) That on Page 4, Letter B, letter a, wants to see a
projection of how applications of herbicides and other
chemical treatments would flow and how they might effect
runoff and the wetlands.
3) That on Page 5, Letter C, Number 2, letter a, wants a
study of the reptiles and amphibians on the site, in addition
to a study of the deer crossing patterns on 96B to be studied.
Ms. Engman recommended Mr. Kelling of Caroline, New York to do
that study.
4) That on Page 5, Letter C, Number 1, Vegetation, a survey
of the vegetation be done in late spring, early summer (Mid to
end of June) because there are a number of plants that come up
in early spring that die off by the heat of the summer.
5)
That on Page 6,
under Transportation, a counter be
put up
at the overlook to
get
an accurate traffic count of
those
using the overlook.
Ms.
Engman requested that the Town
survey
the people who use
the
overlook to see if there is a
great
number of tourists that
may be bringing revenue into the area,
N
Planning Board Minutes
10
December 20, 1994
which would give the
overlook some economic value as well
as
the scenic values.
the Board and
stated that
he felt that there needed to
Ms. Engman stated that completing an EIS was
a big job but that
it
would be worth it because
it would answer a
lot of questions
and
would tell people how this
proposed building
would effect the site
as a brief synopsis of his
environmentally and how it
will effect the plants
and animals that
planning Board, the residents, and Ithacare can all move ahead
because this is an important project
live on the site.
that will
benefit and need these services. we
need to have that as
Douglas
Firth of 989
Danby Road,
addressed
the Board and
stated that
he felt that there needed to
be a clear
definition of
steep slope.
Mr. Firth distributed
written comments for the Board
to review as
he summarized
them for the
members of
the public and
as a brief synopsis of his
thoughts for
the Board.
(Mr. Firth's
comments are attached hereto as Exhibit #5
,lay Mattison of 985 Danby Road,
addressed the Board
and read
from a statement he had prepared
for the Planning Board.
Mr.
Mattison concluded by stating that
the people needed to
have the
information so that logic and common sense could prevail. Mr.
Mattison stated, "I think that we're
spending a fair amount
of time
with the legal system, and making
the lawyers the best
possible
world of generating them the income
and it's too bad that
we're in
that situation. So I hope that we get the information so
that the
planning Board, the residents, and Ithacare can all move ahead
because this is an important project
and there are people
that will
benefit and need these services. we
need to have that as
a goal of
everyone working together. Thank you."
(Mr. Mattison's
comments
are attached
hereto as
Exhibit
#6)
Deborah Martin of 983 Danby Road, addressed the Board and
stated that she had prepared a statement in favor of the Ithacare
Project to be entered into the record. (Ms. Martin's comments are
attached hereto as Exhibit #7)
Anne Butler a volunteer at Ithacare, presented the Board with
written comments prior to the opening of the Public Hearing. (Ms.
Butler's comments are attached hereto as Exhibit #8)
Chairperson Kenerson noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson
Kenerson closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to
the Board for discussion.
Board Member Herbert Finch asked if computer generated images
of projected sites was reasonable to ask for.
Noel Desch, Ithacare Board President, stated that requests for
photographic or computer generated overlays of alternative siting
and building configurations could require as many as 30 to 35
images. Mr. Desch stated that Ithacare received one estimate that
producing a single set of images of the current site and building
configuration from the five locations identified in Appendix Item
Planning Board Minutes
11
December 20, 1994
XI.F would cost approximately $13,000. The cost for expanded
imaging would be prohibitive. Ithacare hopes that the Planning
Board will be flexible and permit Ithacare to present photographic
evidence to identify the effect of the proposed project on scenic
views.
Chairperson Kenerson indicated that the Appendices, in Draft
3.0 of the Scoping Outline for this project, state, "The following
are materials that may be added by the applicant in support of the
DEIS ". Mr. Kenerson stated that he thought that meant that the
applicant had a choice of what to include or not to include. Mr.
Kenerson stated that the Board would act accordingly to what will
be provided in the EIS. Mr. Kenerson stated that it is up to the
applicant to chose what to present to the Planning Board for
review.
Mr. Desch stated
understood what the Bo
Mr. Desch asked what
drawings in Letter G of
of detail the Planning
drawing.
that Ithacare wanted
and would consider a
specifically was me
the Appendices. Mr.
Board was looking for
to be sure that they
complete application.
!ant by Cross - section
Desch asked what level
in each cross - section
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he thought that $13,000
was more than the Board was expecting. Mr. Bell stated that the
Board did not specify "computer generated ", the Board also said
"photographic" which may be considerably cheaper.
Mr. Desch stated that the quotations were based on Ithacare's
interpretation of Page 12, Section XI Appendices, Letter G. Mr.
Desch stated that the judgement should be left to Ithacare as to
where the photos are taken from.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that the Board needs to address
the areas of concern and determine whether or not there is an
impact that is detrimental to the community.
Mr. Desch stated that
it
was Ithacare's job to
give
the Board
an accurate representation
of
what the obstruction
would
be.
Mr. Bell stated that since he was the one who suggested the
list of the four or five locations, he did not see the list as an
optional question and unless Ithacare comes in with photo images
from those locations or some similar locations, the fundamental
visual task at hand would not be accomplished. Mr. Bell stated
that he thought that the photo composites will provide the Board
with a definite answer to the questions people are debating and
without them the question will continue to be open until the
building is built.
Planning Board Minutes
12
December 20, 1994
Board Member Stephen Smith asked if the Board should give
Ithacare the guidance of identifying the view angles that the Board
is concerned with.
Mr. Bell stated that he thought that the Board should vote on
whether to require photos from the four or five locations listed or
whether the locations are an option for the applicant. Mr. Bell
stated that he felt that this was a critical issue.
Town Attorney John Barney asked how the applicant would
photograph the north end of the overlook extension.
Mr. Bell stated
that it might be
hard
because the land is not
there yet. Mr. Bell
stated that maybe
the
photo could be done from
the
shoulder
of the
road,
but that
he
was
not sure.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the extension
as proposed is actually higher than the shoulder of the road, and
that an accurate photo could not be done from the shoulder of the
road.
Attorney Barney stated that Page 12, Section XI, Letter F,
Number 3, should be changed to read the "Approximate north end of
the proposed scenic overlook extension, to soften the requirement
since the issue is view.
Mr. Desch stated that the quotation was for one alternative,
and if the Board asks for five or six other alternatives, this
would be a tremendous cost to Ithacare.
Mr. Bell stated that once the initial imaging is completed for
each location, it does not need to be redone, just place different
overlays on them.
Mark Macera, Executive Director of Ithacare, stated that he
felt that the principal issue was to demonstrate, graphically, the
impact of the current building configuration and location on views.
He went on to state that to consider alternative building designs
and locations just for the sake of making pictures would require
Ithacare to go back to the drawing board and return to the
development design phase. This would cost thousands of dollars and
leave many questions related to geo- technical issues and
programmatic goals and objectives unanswered for some time to come.
Mr. Desch stated that if the Board is talking about sliding
the bulk of the same building slightly one way or the other, visual
imaging could be done. Mr. Desch stated that the Board was talking
about remodeling the building if they were talking about moving it
significantly down the hill or building a tower building.
Planning Board Minutes
13
December 20, 1994
Mr. Bell stated that he felt that moving the building slightly
is not what he considers an alternate building analysis. Mr. Bell
stated that he thought that SEQR intends that there be
alternatives. Mr. Bell stated that if Ithacare came to the Board
and stated that this proposal was the only profile of the building
possibly because Ithacare has already invested so much money to
hire architects and this would be the only possible building this
would not be considered complete.
Mr. Desch asked if
to the same extent that
Mr. Bell stated, n<
alternative profiles of
Town Board did not have
was set in place.
the alternate
the proposed s
Mr. Bell stz
the building.
access to this
locations needed to be done
ite plan was.
tted that there needed to be
Mr. Bell stated that the
information when the zoning
Mr. Desch stated that Ithacare's records show that they did.
Attorney John Barney stated that the Planning Board could
modify Letter G in the Appendices to read, "To the extent
economically feasible, cross - section drawings demonstrating the
effect of the proposed and alternative configurations of the
building(s) on the view from the same locations identified in X(F)
above." Attorney Barney stated that he felt that the problem would
be to design a building for a particular program with particular
parameters which dictates what the external part of the building
would look like. Attorney Barney stated that it sounded like the
Board was requesting that Ithacare rethink the parameters to come
up with a different building shape or design, which would be very
costly. Attorney Barney stated that the Board is supposed to look
at whatever reasonable alternatives there might be.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that he thought
that some of the design alternatives that the Board was discussing
would cause programmatic obstacles for Ithacare which would not
make them feasible. Mr. Frantz stated that a question for the
Board is could those types of alternatives, that run into major
programmatic problems from Ithacare Is standpoint, be dispensed with
in narrative form, without the expense of doing a floor plan of a
single story building or of a four story towering building.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he was not sure that a
narrative description would be enough.
Attorney Barney stated that there is no point in designing a
building that can not be done. Attorney Barney stated that he
thought that could be handled with a narrative description.
Mr.
Frantz stated that
the
narrative would need to be very
detailed
as to why
it
is not
feasible.
Planning Board Minutes
14
December 20, 1994
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that what he saw as
reasonable alternatives to look at from the visual analysis
perspective would be possibly two alternate locations with the same
basic building configuration footprint; 1) Shift the building
southward on the site toward the wetland; knowing that the wetland
has been an issue but to see what the effect would be there with
regard to the view, and 2 ) Shift the building westward down the
slope more; which had other kinds of programmatic and design
constraints. Mr. Kanter stated that he did not feel it was
unrealistic to look at the building from those locations and see
what the view impact change would be. Mr. Kanter stated that his
feelings were that detailed visual studies of a tower and a step
down version of the building would be unreasonable to ask of the
applicant, but the programmatic and descriptive analysis on Page
10, Section VIII, Alternatives, would be the way to handle those.
Mr. Kanter stated that realistically and reasonably the Board could
ask for three sets of drawings and visual analysis of the two
alternative locations discussed earlier in addition to the existing
building.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he felt that it would
be appropriate to determine whether or not the incursion of the
building on a man -made wetland created by an old gravel pit was
less significant than the view.
Mr. Kanter stated that the more information there is about the
wetland and the slopes the better judgement the Board will be able
to make on ultimately. comparing the view impacts with the other
site impacts, which is why those two items were combined in the
Scoping Outline.
Board Member Stephen Smith asked if the Board was referring to
alternative siting of the existing configuration when discussing
alternatives. Mr. Smith stated that if that were true, the Board
should change F to make sure that it does not read that the Board
wants proposed and alternative configurations, but rather proposed
and alternative locations.
Board
Member
Gregory
Bell
stated that he did
not
think that
was true.
Mr. Bell
stated
that
SEQR was very clear
on
this
point.
Mr. Smith stated that the Board was saying that in a narrative
they could dispense with alternative configurations.
Mr. Desch stated that Ithacare could provide narrative
explanations.
Mr. Bell stated that they needed to be addressed one way or
the other as a bare minimum. Mr. Bell stated just to meet the
legal requirement, he would like to see it graphically in addition
to narratively because he thought that was the issue.
Planning Board Minutes 15 December 20, 1994
Town Attorney John Barney stated, responding to Mr. Bell's
statement, not if it is not a feasible building. Attorney Barney
asked Mr. Bell what cost did the Board want to impose on the
developer.
Mr. Bell responded that the
problem was the sequence of
the
history of this whole application.
Mr.
Bell stated that he did
not
think that the Board should be looking
entirely at the cost issue,
although it should be considered.
Mr.
Bell stated that if this
had
been done in the proper sequence
they
would not have invested
the
money they
have already
invested.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that Ithacare thought that
everything was done in the proper sequence.
Attorney Barney stated that an applicant would have to invest
a significant amount of money to get to the point of coming up with
any kind of design, they must have some idea of what they need
programmatically, where the people are going to be, what their
needs are in terms of food service, program service, medical
service, and it takes time and money to get to that point. The
question is how far do you want Ithacare to go back to rethink
their whole program.
Chairperson Kenerson asked the Board what needed to be changed
in the Scoping Outline.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he thought the Board
needed to clarify some of the things being talked about because
they are important issues and they will be keys in terms of the
acceptance of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when that
point comes. Mr. Kanter stated that if the Board was not clear on
key points now, when the EIS is submitted, there will be the same
discussions.
Board Member James Ainslie asked Chairperson Kenerson if the
Board was going to try to incorporate the suggestions given them
from the public.
Chairperson Kenerson responded that if the Board feels they
are warranted, yes.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that he thought that the
Board should review the comments and that he thought that the Board
should keep in mind the context in which the scoping is being done.
Attorney Barney stated that the whole purpose of the scope was to
focus the Environmental Impact Statement on those environmental
impacts that we have some concern about, not every environmental
impact that is possible to list. The context the Board is
operating under includes two things: 1) The Long Environmental
Assessment Form, which identified only one possibly major impact,
and that was the view, and 2) The Court decision where the judge
Planning Board Minutes 16 December 20, 1994
basically said that what he was interested in was, what impact does
this have on the view.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the Board has
already acknowledged the fact that the overlook is a local scenic
asset, regardless of how many people use it.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he did not know that the
Board had acknowledged it. The Board was forced by a court
decision to acknowledge it.
Mr. Frantz and Chairperson Kenerson stated that they disagreed
with Mr. Bell's statement.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that the Board is not forced
by the court decision to acknowledge it, and there was a proposal
to change the shape of the building based on the original findings.
Mr. Frantz stated that the Town Board expressed concern about
the impact on the overlook back in November 1993.
Attorney Barney
stated
that
as a
result
of that concern, the
Town Board
set a ceiling
on
the
height
of the
building.
The Board discussed the best way to proceed with the revisions
to the Scoping Outline, and it was determined that the best way to
address all of the issues was to go through the document page by
page.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if the Board members felt that
there needed to be any changes to Page 1.
Town Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Yntema suggested that
flora and fauna and transportation and safety be added in 2B of the
summary. Attorney Barney stated that he was not sure that the
Board would want these items to be added in the summary because it
is dealing with the principle issue which is the view.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he was not sure that
flora and fauna is an issue of controversy.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that they were
issues that were addressed in the Long Environmental Assessment
Form (LEAF) and discussed extensively by the Planning Board, and
the Planning Board made the determination that there was no
significant adverse impact.
Mr. Smith stated that the same determination was made
regarding transportation. Mr. Smith proposed to leave Item 2B on
Page 1 as is.
The Board concurred with Mr. Smith's statement.
Planning Board Minutes 17 December 20, 1994
Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Yntema asked that on Page 2,
III.B.2 and 3, the site be defined clearly as a parcel of 28.01
acres. Attorney Barney stated that he was not sure that the
description was really necessary at this juncture.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he had no problem with
stating that we are referring to a 28 acre site or parcel if that
makes it clear to the public.
The Board
decided
Yntema
to put
1128 acre parcel" in place of the word
"site" on Page
2,
Item
III.B.2
and 3.
Attorney Barney
stated that Mr.
Yntema
suggested
that the
Board add a number 4
Sewage /Wastewater
to Page
2, Item III.C.
down
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he had been confused by
the sewer issue because the Town is in participation with the City
of Ithaca on sewer and the City has basically agreed to support the
sewer that the Town has. Mr. Finch stated that he does not
understand the significance of the sewer issue for the Planning
Board's consideration for this site.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that one of the reasons the
sewer issue needed to be addressed here is because, where they tap
into the sewer line makes a difference as to the building elevation
and moving the building down the slope would change the sewer hook-
up and alignment and resultant project costs.
Board
Member
James Ainslie
stated
that Mr.
Finch was talking
about the
amount
of sewage going
down
to Cayuga
Street.
Assistant
Town Planner
George Frantz
stated that
it is a good
idea to
show the location
of existing
facilities
because the
location
of the existing sewer line is a
development
constraint.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if the Board wanted to add a number
4 under Item C.
Attorney Barney asked if the Board wanted a description of
where the sewage goes under the description of the site.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he thought it was
important to have a description of where the sewer lines were and
where the potential connection points are. Mr. Smith stated that
only because it was a constraint in moving the building up and
down.
Mr. Desch stated that a description of the sewer lines was a
reasonable request.
Attorney Barney stated that Ms. Engman suggested that on Page
2, Item C.l.b. should include trails.
Planning Board Minutes 18 December 20, 1994
The Board concurred to add trails to Item C.1.b on Page 2 as
suggested by Ms. Engman.
Assistant
Town Planner
George Frantz
stated, for the record,
that regarding
the issue
of impact on the
City's sewer system, in
the LEAF there
is a
question that specifically
addresses this
potential impact.
Mr.
Frantz pointed out
that the Planning Board,
on June 21, 1994
made
the determination
that there would be no
adverse impact
on the
City sewer system.
Mr. Smith stated that he was not concerned with capacity, but
was concerned with location.
The Board concurred to add location of sewer lines and
connection points on Page 2, Item C.4.
Chairperson Kenerson asked the Board if there were any changes
to Page 3. There were no changes to Page 3. Chairperson Kenerson
asked if the Board members had any changes to Page 4.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that on Page 4,
Item 3. Topography, he had no problem using the standard
traditional Town definition of a steep slope - slopes greater than
15 percent - as described in the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that with the basic
topography, it seemed to him that such a definition would be
appropriate.
Mr. Smith stated that they wanted to make sure that there is
some sort of a slope map prepared for easy visual reference.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he thought that the
Board should require that there be a slope map to make sure it is
done.
Mr.
Desch
stated
that the Town has a map that shows the degree
of the slopes
"description and maps of
of the
property.
Mr. Frantz stated that the Town has a map that shows the areas
of slope in excess of 15 percent for the Ithacare site. Mr. Frantz
stated that Ithacare also has a much more detailed survey with
topography which is more accurate than the Town's map.
Mr. Finch stated that it would be fine to add that in.
The Board concurred
to change
Item 3.a.
on Page 4 to read
"description and maps of
topography
at project
site ".
Planning Board Minutes
M
December 20, 1994
Attorney Barney stated, that there were questions regarding the
effects of fertilizers and pesticides on ground water. Attorney
Barney stated that he thought that issue was beyond the scope of
what the Board is dealing with.
Mr. Frantz stated that Ithacare could note the fact that the
site plan as designed was diverting stormwater runoff away from the
wetland. Mr. Frantz stated that early on the Board was discussing
directing the stormwater runoff into the wetland pond and then
professor Konfer pointed out to the Board that would not be a good
idea because of the fluctuations in the water level of the pond
which would occur could be damaging to the wild fowl using the
pond. Mr. Frantz stated that Ithacare went back to the drawing
board and came back with a site plan that had the stormwater being
diverted away from the pond.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that Mr. Yntema suggested
that on Page 4.B.l.a. Surface water, the word "quantity" be added
to the examples currently listed. The Board concurred with the
suggestion.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that Mr. Lucente wanted his
property to be listed on Page 4, Item B.1.d. Attorney Barney
stated that he was not sure that was necessary.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that it would not include
his property specifically but would include a description of that
area in the City of Ithaca. Mr. Walker stated that the Board may
find that his particular properties are not down hill from this
project.
Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Yntema suggested that on Page
4, Item B, that the Board add sub item 2.Subsurface water.
Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Yntema made several comments on
that on Page 1 of his letter submitted earlier.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that subsurface water did not have
anything to do with the view.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that subsurface was a
category that the Board had previously decided was alright to leave
out.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the Planning
Board in the LEAF decided that there would be no effect on surface
or ground water, quality or quantity.
Mr. Walker stated that in evaluating the environmental
significance of something like that, about 8 years ago the Town
installed a water main on Stone Quarry Road because the residents
didn't have adequate ground water. Mr. Walker stated that they now
have public water supply. Mr. Walker stated that the geography in
Planning Board Minutes
20
December 20, 1994
that area has a lot of shallow bedrock in the area. Mr. Walker
stated that he did not feel that this project would be impacting on
groundwater in the area.
The Board concurred to leave subsurface water out of the
Scoping Outline.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if there were any comments or
changes to page 5.
Mr. Kanter stated that Ms. Engman asked that the Board include
studies of vegetation in late spring, early summer. Mr. Kanter
stated that under Fish and Wildlife, Ms. Engman also asked the
Board to study specifically the amphibians and reptiles on the
site; in addition to the deer crossing patterns.
Mr. Frantz stated that there were a number of discussions,
both at the Town Board and the Planning Board, that were provided
by Mr. Confer and Mr. Wesley regarding wildlife on the site, and no
one came up with any evidence that there were any threatened or
endangered species on the site.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that the Board should be
concerned with whether or not there are any threatened or
endangered species on the site, and earlier studies showed that
there were none. Mr. Finch stated that there is nothing that
requires the Board to inventory every possible species.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that certain types
of development proposals can adversely impact even non - endangered
species and should be studied, but in this case the determination
was that this project was not going to have any significant adverse
impact on any animal species on the site.
Town Attorney John
Barney
stated
that
Mr. Yntema made several
suggestions regarding
fish
and
wildlife
on
Page 2 of his comments.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that to require someone to
do a year round study on birds, mammals, and reptiles would not
effect the view of the property.
Mr. Frantz read from the LEAF as follows: "Will proposed
action effect any threatened or endangered plant and animal
species ?" Mr Frantz stated that the Planning Board determined, no.
Mr. Frantz read, "Will proposed action substantially effect non -
threatened or non - endangered species?" Mr. Frantz stated that once
again, the Planning Board made the determination that the answer
was, no.
Planning Board Minutes
21
December 20, 1994
The Board discussed those comments regarding plants and
wildlife made by Ms. Engman and Mr. Yntema and determined that
there would be no changes to the Scoping Outline from those
comments.
Chairperson
Kenerson asked
if
there were any comments or
changes on Page
6. Chairperson
Kenerson stated that he thought
that the suggestion of the survey
track at
of who uses the overlook was
interesting but
he did not know
how
it could be done and have it
mean anything or
change anything
in
a timely way.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he did not think it
needed to be stretched over 12 months, it could be done on a
Sunday.
Chairperson Kenerson stated that it was a matter of opinion as
to what the value of the overlook is. Chairperson Kenerson stated
that it would not make much sense to do a survey for 30 days in
January or February.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that this was obviously the
low season for people using the overlook.
Mr. Frantz stated that the overlook is not maintained in the
winter so at this point last year, the overlook was not used by
anyone.
Mr.
Macera stated
that
beginning with the heavy snowfalls in
December
of 1993 until
April
of 1994, there was not one single tire
track at
the overlook
and it
was never plowed.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter asked Mr. Macera if New York
State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) was asked for any
survey information regarding the maintenance and use of the
overlook.
Mr. Macera responded that NYS DOT was asked and that they did
not have any information on that. Mr. Macera stated that they
asked DOT about their procedures regarding snow removal and it was
a new question to them.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that it would be interesting
to know if the Chamber of Commerce had the overlook listed on any
of their brochures or maps that they put out for the public.
Mr. Kanter stated that he would add to the scope that the
applicant provide any existing survey information of the overlook
area, but not go as far as requiring new surveys to be done.
Planning Board Minutes
22
December 20, 1994
Town Attorney John Barney stated that he would put Mr.
Kanter's suggestion on Page 7, under E. Cultural Resources, as an
addition to sub item b.
The Board concurred with what Mr. Kanter and Mr. Barney
suggested.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that with regard to Item 2.c.
on Page 6, the site is very remote from downtown for people to walk
to and that he feels that there should be some sort of description
of whether someone could walk down Route 96b to town and the
availability of sidewalks.
Mr. Frantz asked if it would be just to list the distance to
downtown from the site.
Mr. Bell stated that he wanted to know the distance and
whether there were sidewalks.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker
would not be encouraged because c
would have a system of vans to move
College and that Gadabout services
of Ithacare, which was included in
Planning Board.
stated that pedestrian traffic
>f Route 96b and that Ithacare
people back and forth to Ithaca
would be used by the residents
the evaluation by Staff and the
Mr. Bell stated that the Scoping Outline was supposed to be
the comprehensive statement not referencing previous documents.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the scoping outline was
to keep the Planning Board members focused on what the major
impacts would be. Attorney Barney stated that he was not sure what
walking up and down the road had to do with the views.
Mr. Bell stated that it had to do with alternatives, and the
law requires that you look at alternative sites, not only
reconfigurations within this site. Mr. Bell stated that if this
site is inaccessible to pedestrians or senior citizens, then he
thought that the Board should hear why Ithacare would be put on
that site, instead of putting it closer to town.
Mr. Desch stated that Ithacare's program statement addressed
the issue of providing transportation for its residents. This
matter is neither unique to Ithacare's proposed project nor is it
a topic of "significant environmental impact" that requires it to
be addressed as part of the EIS.
Mr. Bell stated that Ithacare is required to look at what the
Board says they are required to look at.
Mr. Desch responded, "not really, the judge's decision
addresses what the significant impacts are."
Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Bell responded,
override SEQR. It requires
23
December 20, 1994
"but,
the
judge's
decision does not
also constrained by
the
and there are limits on
what the Board can
Board
in terms of what it must
have. Attorney
to
follow
Board needs to keep the
scope reasonably
SEQR."
the
issues are that have
Town Attorney
John
Barney stated that the
Planning Board is
also constrained by
SEQR
and there are limits on
what the Board can
impose on the applicant
in terms of what it must
have. Attorney
Barney stated that
the
Board needs to keep the
scope reasonably
related to what
the
issues are that have
been raised as
environmental issues
and
the issue that has been
raised
is view.
Mr.
Bell
stated
that
one of the
ways you
can mitigate the view
impact
this is
is
by
putting
proposal.
Mr.
Bell stated that one would have to get
the
go walk
whole
in the city park.
project
some
place else.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board could deal with that in
the section on alternatives but to get to the refinement of saying
because we have sidewalks here and we don't have sidewalks there,
as a basis of making an alternative decision - I think it's a level
of detail that would not be fair.
Mr. Bell stated that he did not think so.
Attorney Barney stated to Mr. Bell, that he could make that
argument on anything. You could say because the sewer line doesn't
go up there or because the sewer line goes there or because there
is a less traveled road. There are a tremendous amount of things,
but Mr. Bell is suggesting making an environmental impact study of
every potential alternative site.
Mr. Bell stated that the SEQR does suggest that.
Attorney Barney responded, no -- that it does not, absolutely
not Attorney Barney stated that it suggests alternatives, but
generally, they do not require you to go out and do, in affect, EIS
on every alternative site.
Mr.
Bell
stated not
in the same detail, but it does require
that you
at
least examine
why this site is better.
Attorney Barney responded, in general. Attorney Barney stated
that it is really a question of whether you had to deal with
alternatives on this site when you have a private project as
opposed to a public project.
Mr.
Bell
stated that it is not his understanding
of SEQR that
they can
really
ignore alternative sites. Mr. Bell
stated that
this is
such
a car - oriented society and this is a
car - oriented
proposal.
Mr.
Bell stated that one would have to get
onto a van to
go walk
in the city park.
Planning Board Minutes
Attorney Barney stated
changed by whether it is a
project, and that was the is
Board needed to deal with t
h
24
that the view
car - oriented or
sue. Attorney
e issue of the
December 20, 1994
was not going to be
a pedestrian- oriented
Barney stated that the
view.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that in the original
project presentation, the reasoning for selecting this site was
addressed by the project sponsor. Mr. Walker stated that the
information was utilized in the original EAF and it was not
considered to be a significant issue. Mr. Walker stated that he
believed that in the project description, that would be included in
the general overview of why they selected this site. Mr. Walker
stated that someone gave Ithacare a site that is close to a program
that Ithaca College is developing, there are a lot of pluses on
this location and that is why, in Mr. Walker's opinion, the Town
Board said this was a good idea.
Attorney Barney stated to Mr. Bell that Section 617.14f of the
SEQR regulations states, "for private applicants any alternative
for which no discretionary approvals are needed may be described.
Site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by or under
option to a private applicant." Attorney Barney stated that was
all that the Board could really request of Ithacare. Attorney
Barney stated that when discussing alternatives, the Board needs to
focus on alternatives having to deal with this particular site.
Mark Macera stated that Ithacare had provided the Town with
information regarding its consideration of other sites, and that
the information was part of the record. Mr. Macera stated that
this information would be included in the EIS. Mr. Macera pointed
out that the programmatic and inter_ generational relationship
Ithacare is establishing with Ithaca College eliminates the
possibility of further considering any of the other sites.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that on Page 10, under
Alternatives, Item B, it states, "This evaluation should be
approached on a general level, not a site specific evaluation of
other sites." Mr. Kanter stated that Ithacare had provided some
information on other sites that had been part of the process in
selection. Mr.
suggesting are
Kanter stated that
based on alternative
some of the things Mr. Bell is
site specifics not in a general
manner, and would be inappropriate
to add
to the Scoping Outline.
Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Yntema suggested that on Page
7, under Item 1, that a new g. be added educational facilities.
Attorney Barney thought it was a good suggestion.
The Board concurred to add a new Item 1.g on Page 7.
Planning Board Minutes
25
December 20, 1994
Mr.
Kanter stated that referring back
to Page 6 there was a
request
that they
make reference to the
fact that there are
residences
in the
vicinity of the project
site, and suggested
adding "residences"
in the list of examples
under Item B.1.a.
The
Board decided
to add single family
residences in the
vicinity.
Attorney Susan Brock addressed the Board and commented on the
fact that a variety of issues were being raised that have no
relation to the impact on views. Ms. Brock stated that if the
Board felt that any of these issues represented "significant
environmental impacts" it would be appropriate to include them in
the scoping outline and Ithacare would respond to them.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the intent is
to document, for the record, what the Planning Board has already
determined, that there are no significant Terrestrial and Aquatic
resources on the site.
Mr. Macera echoed Ms. Brock's comments stating that Ithacare
would like to see the Board add issues to the scoping outline that
the Board felt were "significant environmental impacts" whether or
not they were related to the issue of views.
Mr. Bell stated that he thought the answer is whatever the
Board passes at the next meeting, which will be the final outline.
Attorney Barney stated that the point was well taken in a
sense that if we are describing something, it should be described
in a context of Section 5 on Pages 7 & 8 Significant Environmental
Impacts, and these are what the Board is supposed to be analyzing.
Attorney Barney stated that in the course of analyzing do we need
a description of transportation needs, for example.
Ms. Brock stated that Ithacare was not disputing any of the
changes made by the Planning Board, they were trying to make sure
that everything that is supposed to be considered is considered and
on the proper basis, and it sounds like it is.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that taking
Transportation as an example, the Planning Board already made the
determination that there would be no significant adverse impacts to
the existing transportation system. Mr. Frantz stated that
determination was already on the record in the Long Environmental
Assessment Form,
Attorney Barney stated that the question then becomes why does
the Board need a big description about transportation services if
it is not an item that needs to be analyzed.
Planning Board Minutes 26 December 20, 1994
Mr. Macera
stated
that the
confusion comes from the statement,
what
as
does
that
problems in the future.
have
to
do with
to
view.
Attorney Barney stated that view is the issue. If you have an
EIS that is going to discuss steep slopes, aesthetic resources,
wetlands, stormwater runoff, and sewer overflows, which have been
identified as areas that are going to be analyzed, then why do we
need a big descriptive section on transportation.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that he understood it to
be
that the
Planning Board was
trying to cover as many areas
as
necessary
simply to avoid any
problems in the future.
Mr.
Frantz stated that
he sees this as using the EIS
to
document
the existing facilities
and the fact that they
are
adequate.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if there were any changes or
comments on Page 7.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that Mr. Yntema had a
suggestion regarding Page 7, Item IV.E.1.Visual resources - that
the overlook description should acknowledge that Ithacare's parcel
includes portions of the parking spaces on the paved area and
additional areas adjacent to the paved part of the overlook.
Noel Desch stated that it was not really an issue of visual
resources as much as it is clarification of the description and
that Ithacare would be taken care of. Mr. Desch stated that he did
not feel that it needed to be part of the scope that it would be
covered in the design layout and location.
Chairperson Kenerson asked if there were any changes or
comments on Page 8.
Attorney John Barney stated that Mr. Firth requested that the
Board analyze the impact of the proposed project relative to
residents living in its immediate vicinity. Included in the
analysis Mr. Firth wanted to know the effect of the facility on
residents' property values. Attorney Barney stated that Ms. Brock
had mentioned to him that property values are not a permitted item
to be analyzed under SEQR regulations. Attorney Barney stated that
the impact on residents was alright, but economic impact should not
be included.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that somewhere in Section 617
there was a section that discussed balancing the environment versus
economic impact.
. 0
Planning Board Minutes
27
December 20, 1994
Attorney Barney responded that the economic impact referred to
is the economic benefit of the project versus the adverse
environmental impacts, not specific property values on anything
other than the specific site itself.
Mr. Bell
there economic
stated that
he
did not
think
it
was
much of
a stretch
to say that
if
something
is
negative
that
you
can't
talk
about it.
Attorney Barney stated that Page 60 - 61 of the SEQR handbook
reads as follows.
QUESTION: Are
there economic
or
social.factors which are
inappropriate
for inclusion
in
an EIS?
ANSWER.
The potential
effects that
a proposed project
might
have in drawing
customers or
profits away from
established
enterprises
or in reducing
property values in
the community may not be
considered in
a SEQR. Potential
economic
disadvantage
caused by
competition or
speculative
economic
loss
are not environmental
factors.
Attorney Barney stated that one letter suggested adding an
additional environmental impact on existing land use and suggesting
that you analyze the impact of the proposed project relative to the
residents in the near vicinity. Attorney Barney stated that his
own comment on that is that the Board is analyzing the view and
aesthetics, obviously the neighboring landowners would be included
in that analysis.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the Town Board took
that into account when the land was rezoned to residential used as
opposed to heavy industrial use.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board may want to add an
additional sentence on Page 7, Section V, Item A to read that the
analysis should include impact on surrounding landowners.
Mr. Macera stated that he was confused about how such an
analysis would be accomplished and would such an analysis require
access to the neighborhood properties.
Attorney Barney asked if it would be possible to insert a
general statement as to what the possible impact was likely to be
to the neighboring properties.
Carl Guy, Vice President of Court Street Companies, Ithacare's
construction manager asked how many residences the Board was
talking about, how far does Ithacare go.
Attorney Barney stated those in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Desch asked that John Barney repeat his proposal.
. 0
Planning Board Minutes
December 20, 1994
Attorney Barney stated they were asking for an analysis to
include the immediately surrounding residences.
Mr. Macera
asked
if that could be
accomplished by identifying
elevations and
taking
photographs
from
neighbors' premises.
Attorney Barney stated that Ithacare could do it any way they
wanted to.
Mr. Desch stated that photos would be expensive.
Attorney Barney stated that as long as it showed the potential
impact it would suffice.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that thus far the
concern has been the impact on the public resource, the overlook,
and along in the debate the focus has been the potential impact on
a public visual resource, the overlook. Mr. Frantz stated that
this says to him that the Board will be looking at the impact on
the public resource and the impact on private resource.
Attorney Barney stated whenever you analyze a view you will
always have the opportunity or at least the possibility of
impacting pieces of private property as well as publicly. Mr.
Barney stated that he was not sure that was an impact that should
not be studied.
Mr. Guy asked what mean data would the Board assume would be
the residents point of view, other than taking the worst case
scenario which is what Ithacare has done thus far.
Attorney Barney stated that his
would say that as part of the analysis,
overlook is the worst that you see and
it the perspective changes, the amount
reduced; that is an analysis.
feeling was that Ithacare
and if what you see off the
that as you back away from
of building that you see is
Mr. Desch asked if the Board could deny approval of the
project based on their being an impact on the view from a
residence.
Attorney Barney responded, probably not.
Ms. Brock stated that the point of the lawsuit was the view
from the overlook.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter suggested that a description of
the visual relationship between residences in the immediate
vicinity and the project, be placed on Page 7, Under Cultural
Resources, Item E, a new letter d.
Planning Board Minutes
29
December 20, 1994
The
The Board
Planning Board
also concurred
concurred with Mr.
that anywhere steep
Kanter's suggestion.
slopes were mentioned
it would
of
discussion regarding Item A.1.a.
be defined
Resources,
on
as slopes
of
15 percent
or greater.
Attorney Barney stated
that there
was quite
a
lot
of
discussion regarding Item A.1.a.
under Human
Resources,
on
Page
9.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that it was a minor
definitional problem. Mr. Bell stated that Item B is listed as
Cultural Resources, and Item 1 is visual resources, which is not a
cultural resource. Mr. Bell stated that cultural resources deal
with people and visual has to do with a physical object and is
technically not a cultural resource. Mr. Bell stated that the use
of the view is cultural, but that the resource itself is not
cultural. Mr. Bell stated that he would cross out Letter B and
make Visual Resources Letter B on Page 9.
Assistant Town
Aesthetic Resources
Form (LEAF).
The Board conci
current Item B, and
and the items would
Planner George Frantz stated that the words
were used in the Long Environmental Assessment
.erred with Mr. Bell's suggestion to delete the
to relist Visual Resources as the new Item B,
be renumbered accordingly, on Page 9.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that there was a request
in Mr. Firth's letter to take out the reference to the standards
established in the SLUD on Page 9, Item A.l.a.
Mr. Bell stated that he was not sure that the Town Board, at
the point a couple of months from now whenever this statement is
finished, that had they had this information in front of them, they
may not have passed SLUD #7 the way they did. Mr. Bell stated that
this was making the assumption that the Town Board may not have
passed the SLUD with this footprint once they knew about the
impacts and the degree to which the building would be seen. Mr.
Bell stated that he felt that the Town Board may change SLUD #7
once the EIS is completed. Mr. Bell stated that if the Planning
Board goes into it saying that SLUD #7 is the only possible choice,
then the Town Board's hands would be tied. Mr. Bell stated that he
felt that the Planning Board should not say that SLUD #7 is it.
Attorney Barney stated that instead of saying to meet
requirements and standards in SLUD, that it be consistent with the
intention of the Town Board as expressed. Attorney Barney stated
that he did not feel that it was inappropriate to reference SLUD #7
here.
Mr. Frantz stated that the only information that the Town
Board did not have when it adopted the SLUD that the Planning Board
had when it considered the Ithacare site plan on June 21, 1994 was
the experience of the balloon test which only confirmed the
. 1
Planning Board Minutes
WE
December 20, 1994
assessment given the Town Board by himself as the planner reviewing
the project and completing the LEAF on behalf of the Town Board;
which was that the proposed building would block a portion of West
Hill from roughly half way between the hospital and Route 89,
swinging in an arc around westward to Bostwick Road and from West
Haven Road downhill. Mr. Frantz stated that they had that
information in their hands when they made their decision on the
Special Land Use District (SLUD #7). Mr. Frantz stated that they
had graphic presentation, maps, and other pertinent information.
Attorney Barney stated that he was not sure that they would
change the SLUD as Mr. Bell had stated.
The Board determined to delete the words, "to meet
requirements and standards established in" and put "consistent with
the policies evidenced by" for Item A.1.a on Page 9.
Attorney
Barney stated
that Mr.
Yntema had made a
suggestion
that
the list of examples under Item
Scoping
there
be
a description
of
the
redesigned overlook
included.
Mr. Frantz stated that he believed that the redesigned
overlook was included in the site plan that was presented to the
Planning Board.
Board Member Stephen Smith stated that it would be very
helpful to have cross - section drawings of the extended overlook to
make a determination of whether that should be built. Mr. Smith
stated that it may be more offensive than the blockage of the view.
Mr. Desch asked if that was covered in the appendices.
Attorney Barney stated that the appendices refer to
photographic exhibits from the overlook extension.
Town Planner
a question during
were built, would
is the kind of de:
for.
Jonathan Kanter stated that he thought there was
the review process that asked if the extension
that further block any views from anywhere, which
;cription that Mr. Yntema's suggestion is looking
Mr. Yntema nodded his head in concurrence with Mr. Kanter's
statement.
The Board determined that a new Letter H would be added to the
Appendices which would request a longitudinal cross - section drawing
of the design of the proposed overlook extension along Danby Road.
Chairperson
Kenerson
asked if
there were any questions or
comments on Page
10 of the
the list of examples under Item
Scoping
Outline.
The
Board made the
determination to add "rotate
building
footprint
180 degrees" to
the list of examples under Item
VII.A.3.
Planning Board Minutes
31
December 20, 1994
The
only
change
to
Page
11
was
to change
the word "site" to
"parcel"
under
Items
X.A,
X.A.1,
and
Item X.A.l.a.
The
Board
concluded
its review of Draft 3.0 of the Scoping
Outline
3.0 of the
for
the
the
proposed
Ithacare
project
project.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that Town Planner Jonathan
Kanter will prepare draft 4.0 of the Scoping Outline and present it
to the Planning Board on January 3, 1995, and the Board will then
adopt it or reject it at that meeting.
Chairperson
Kenerson declared the
matter
of
Draft
3.0 of the
Scoping Outline
for
the
proposed Ithacare
project
duly
closed.
AGENDA ITEM. OTHER BUSINESS.
Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that there
would need to be a decision on the scoping process for the
Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision, but timewise the Board will
be running into a problem under required SEQR time frames. Mr.
Kanter stated that at the last meeting the Board did not determine
what the scoping process would be for the Environmental Impact
Statement. Mr. Kanter stated that he was thinking of having a less
formal scoping process for the Buttermilk Valley project because it
doesn't seem to have the potential for controversy that Ithacare
has and the items of potential impact listed in the Positive
Declaration were fairly limited.
The Board discussed the upcoming agenda items for the Planning
Board meeting to be held on January 3, 1995 and asked that Mr.
Kanter try to get the applicant to agree to extend the 30 day SEQR
deadline so that the Board could spend an adequate amount of time
on the already schedule agenda items for the January 3, 1995
meeting, and then discuss the Buttermilk Valley scoping outline at
the second January meeting.
Mr. Kanter stated that he would talk to Mr. Wiggins to see if
that was agreeable with him.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Kenerson
declared this segment of the meeting duly closed.
Planning Board Minutes 32 December 20, 1994
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairperson Kenerson declared the December 20,
1994 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at
11:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
StarrRae Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
12/29/94.
•
0
•
COPY
SCOPING OUTLINE
ITHACARE SENIOR LIVING CONDAUNITY
(Draft 3.0)
December 9, 1994
McName c \ldevrevs\ithacare \scope3 -O mein
'sown of Ithaca Planning Board
Lead Agency
Exhibit #
12/20/94 PB Minutes
ON
TOWN CLERK 273 -1721
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273--6035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783
FAX (607) 273 -1704
TO: Involved and Interested Agencies and Other Individuals
FROM: Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner
RE: Ithacare Draft Scoping Outline
DATE: December 9, 1994
A positive declaration of environmental significance was made by the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, lead agency, on December 6, 1994, regarding the proposed Ithacare
Senior Living Community, at the direction of Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Tompkins County. The following draft Scoping Outline provides a framework
for the scope and content of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which
will have to be prepared by Ithacare Center.
This draft Scoping Outline is being distributed to Interested and Involved Agencies
and other individuals with a potential interest in this project. A Public Scoping
• Hearing. to determine the scope and content of the DEIS will be held on Tuesday,
December 20, 1994, at 8:00 p.m. at the Ithaca Town Hall Board Room, 126 East
Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y. Comments on the draft Scoping Outline are requested and
may be made in person at the Public Scoping Hearing, or will be accepted in writing
by the contact person until December 20, 1994.
Scoping is a process that identifies relevant environmental effects of an action to be
addressed in a DEIS. The purpose of scoping is to narrow issues and to ensure that
the DEIS will be a concise, accurate and complete document that is adequate for
public review. While the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) does not
mandate a formal scoping process, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has opted to
conduct formal scoping, with full opportunity for public input. Under this approach,
the lead agency must complete the scoping process and provide a written scope of
issues to the applicant and all involved agencies within 30 calendar days of the filing
of the positive declaration.
The scoping process is more fully described in The SEOR Handbook (Nov. 1992),
N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental Conservation. A copy is available for review in the
Town of Ithaca Planning Department. For further information on the project or
questions on the scoping process, please contact:
• Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner
Town of Ithaca, 126 E. Seneca St., Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Phone: 607- 273-1747; FAX: 607 - 273 -1704
•
•
I.
II.
0 III.
Scoping Outline for Ithacare Environmental Impact Statement
Cover Sheet
Document should begin with a cover sheet that indicates:
A. Whether it is a draft or final impact statement
B. Name or other descriptive title of the project
C. Location (county and town) of the project
D. Name and address of the lead agency which required preparation of the
statement (Town of Ithaca Planning Board) and the name and telephone
number of a person at the agency to be contacted for further
information (Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner; Phone: (607) 273 -17477
E. Name and address of the preparers of any portion of the statement and
a contact name and telephone number
F. Date of acceptance of the Draft EIS (to be filled in when accepted)
G. Deadline date by which comments are due (to be filled in when
accepted)
Table of Contents and Summary
An Executive Summary should follow the Table of Contents. The Summary
should include:
A. Brief description of the action
B. Significant, beneficial and adverse impacts (issues of controversy - e.g.,
visual impact - must be specified)
CO Mitigation measures proposed
D. Alternatives considered
E. Matters to be decided (permits, approvals, funding)
Description of the Proposed Action
A. Project Purpose and Need
10 Background and history
2. Public need for the project, and municipality objectives based on
adopted community development plans
3. Objectives of the project sponsor
Be Location
10 Establish geographic boundaries of the project (use regional and
local location maps to illustrate)
2. Description of access to the site
30 Description of existing zoning of the site
C. Design and Layout
1. Total site area
a. proposed impervious surface area (roofs, parking lots,
roads)
be amount of land to be cleared
ca open space
2. Structures
- a. gross floor area (GFA) of buildings, structures
be layout of buildings
ce site plans and profile views
3. Parking
a. pavement area
be number of spaces and layout _.
'D. Construction and Operation
10 Construction
a. total construction period anti cipated
2
•
0
•
•
0
b. schedule of construction
co future potential development, on site or on adjoining
properties
2. Operation
a. type of operation, activities that will occur at facility
b, schedule of operation and activities
E. Approvals
14 Required changes or variances to the zoning regulations, if any
2. Other permit approval or funding requirements
Environmental Setting
Q l 1C a �7MU94M
A.
1.
2.
-..
Subsurface
a. composition and thickness of subsurface material
examples: depth to, and nature of, bedrock formations
and impermeable layers
occurrence of an extractive mineral resource
usefulness as a construction material
Surface
a. list of soil types
bo discussion of soil characteristics
examples: physical properties (indication of soils
hydrological /infiltration capabilities)
engineering properties (soil bearing capacity)
ce distribution of soil types at project site
3
do suitability for use
examples:
3. Topography
agriculture, recreation, construction, mining
a. description of topography at project site
examples: slopes, prominent or unique features
be description of topography of surrounding area
Water Resources
L
Surface water
a. location and description of surface waters located on
project site or those that may be influenced by the project
examples: seasonal variation, quality, classification
according to NYS Dept.. of Health or DEC
be identification of uses and level of use of all surface waters
examples: public /private water supply
industrial uses
agricultural uses
recreation
c. description of existing drainage areas, patterns and
channels
do discussion of potential for flooding, siltation, erosion and
eutrophication of water sources
examples:
include description of area in City of Ithaca
that receives drainage from site that is prone
to flooding (Cayuga Street /Six Mile Creek
area) and relation of drainage from this site to
the affected area of the City
4
•
Ll
'
e
•
Ll
•
•
C. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1.
2.
I
Vegetation
a. list vegetation types on the project site and within the
surrounding area
be discussion of site vegetation characteristics
examples: species present and abundance
age, size, distribution
dominance
plant community types
unique, rare and endangered species
value as habitat for wildlife
productivity
Fish and Wildlife
a. list of fish and wildlife species on the project site and
within surrounding area, including migratory and resident
species
be discussion of fish and wildlife population characteristics
examples: species present and abundance
distribution, dominance
unique, rare and endangered species
productivity
Wetlands
a. list wetland areas within or contiguous to the project site
be discuss wetland characteristics
examples: acreage
vegetative cover
classification
benefits of wetland such as flood and erosion
control, recreation
HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Transportation
G
�
1. Transportation services
a. description of the size, capacity and condition of services
examples: roads, bridges, parking facilities, traffic
control
be description of current level of use of services
examples: a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic flow
vehicle mix
• sources of existing traffic volume
2. Public transportation and pedestrian environment
a. description of the current availability of service
be description of present level of use
ce description of facilities to serve pedestrians and patterns of
�- pedestrian traffic
Be Land Use and Zoning
19 Existing land use and zoning
a. description of the existing land use of the project site and
the surrounding area
examples: commercial, residential, agricultural, business,
retail, industrial, institutional, vacant, state
park, scenic overlook
be description of the existing zoning of site and surrounding
area
CO
2. Land use plans
a. description of Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
regarding project site and surrounding area
be discussion of future development trends or pressures in
the area
Community Services
Y"
6
10 Include a list of existing facilities and services and a discussion of
existing levels of usage and projected future needs for the
following:
a. police protection
bo fire protection
co health care facilities
do social services
e. recreational facilities
f. utilities
D. Demography
10 Population characteristics
a. focus on the characteristics and trends of the aging
population and their needs
• E. Cultural Resources
10 Visual resources
a. description of the physical character of the community
example: urban vs. rural
bo description of natural areas of significant scenic value,
including the overlook on Danby Road
co identification of structures of significant architectural
design
V, Significant Environmental Impacts
A. Aesthetic Resources, Wetlands and Steep Slopes
Discuss the following aspects of the environmental setting from Section
IV that may be adversely or beneficially affected by the proposed action.
e The only "potential large impact" identified in the Full Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF), Part II (6/21/94), was in the category of
"aesthetic resources," which included ... "blocking portions of the view
F
Vl:.
1
from the existing Danby RoadlRte. 96B overlook." In order to
adequately assess that impact, potential impacts on other site features,
including wetlands and steep slopes, should be considered, since those
constraints have influenced the proposed location, configuration and
design of the Ithacare facility.
Be Stormwater Runoff/ Downstream Flooding and Sewer Overflows in City
of Ithaca
In addition, the following potential impacts should be addressed that
have been raised by the Tompkins County Department of Health (DOH)
in conjunction with several other projects in this area of South Hill,
which could apply to the Ithacare project:
1. Stormwater Runoff /Downstream Flooding
DOH has indicated that there could be potential impacts from the
increase in run -off from projects in this area of South Hill which
may significantly increase problems in the City of Ithaca where
drainage channels are very flat. Run -off from the Ithacare site
would drain down toward the Meadow Street area in the City
where flooding problems have occurred. This potential impact
should be addressed in the DEIS.
2. Sewer Overflows
DOH has also indicated that overflowing sewers on Cayuga
Street in the City of Ithaca affect the neighboring residences and
businesses and degrade Six Mile Creek, and has stated in regard
to several other projects in the South Hill area that increased
sanitary wastes generated by new projects will add significantly
to the overflow problem. This potential impact as it relates to the
Ithacare project should be addressed in the DEIS.
Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental Impact
Describe measures to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts identified in
Section V above, including the following.
NATURAL RESOURCES
/^ A. Geology
Topography
a. avoid construction on areas of steep slope
J
v
0
•
•
C7
r.
co
be design adequate soil erosion protection devices to
minimize impact on areas of steep slope
Water Resources
1. Surface Water
a. design adequate stormwater control system -
be ensure use of soil erosion control techniques during
construction and operation to avoid siltation
examples: hay bales
temporary restoration of vegetation to
disturbed areas
landscaping
Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
1. Wetlands
a, avoid construction in or near wetlands
HUMAN RESOURCES
:
Land Use and Zoning
10 Existing land use and zoning
a. design project to comply with existing land use plans,
to meet requirements and standards established in Special
Land Use District No. 7 and in a functional and visually
appealing way to set standard and precedent for future
surrounding land use
Cultural Resources
10 Visual resources
a. redesign the existing overlook to extend the public viewing
area
be design exterior of structure to physically blend with
existing surroundings
ce minimize visual impact through thoughful and innovative
9
VII.
VIII:0
design of lighting and signs (consider height, size,
intensity, glare, and hours of lighting operation)
do design landscaping to be visually pleasing and to serve as
a buffer between the surrounding land uses, parking areas
operational equipment and facilities
tal
Implemented
Avoi
ect is
Identify those adverse environmental effects in Section V above that can be
expected to occur regardless of mitigation measures considered in Section VI.
Alternatives
Discuss the following alternatives at a level sufficient to permit a comparative
assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. It is
not acceptable to make simple assertions that a particular alternative is or is
not feasible.
A.
Be
Alternative Design and Technologies
16 Site layout
a. density and location of structures on the site (other
locations on the site where buildings might be situated)
be location of access routes, parking and utility routes
2. Orientation of buildings /facilities
a. compatibility with slope and drainage patterns
be site size and setback requirements
3. Alternative configuration of building(s)
examples: stepping building down slope
tower rather than spread out footprint
Alternative Sites
This evaluation should be a_pproach_ed_ on a general level, not a site
specific evaluation of other sites.
L . _ Advantages and disadvantages of alternative sites
10
0
El
•
•
IX.
X.
examples: availability of land
suitability of alternate site(s) to accommodate
design /program requirements
suitable market area
compatibility with regional objectives
accessibility to transportation routes and the service
population
Co Alternative Size
1. Decrease project size to miru nine possible impacts
D. Alternative Land Use
10 Suitability of site for other uses (such as commercial, industrial,
other type of housing)
E. No Action
10 Impacts of no action
a, effect on public need
bo effect on applicant's need
co beneficial or adverse environmental impacts
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Identify those natural and human resources listed in Section IV that will be
consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. Indicate in
particular how resources associated with the portion of the site to be
constructed will be affected.
Growth Inducing Aspects
Describe the potential growth aspects the proposed project may have,
including the following:
A. Future Development Plans Ithacare Has for This Site
1. Describe the future potential development on this site
a. What are Ithacare's future plans for additional
development on this site
11
b. What additional development could theoretically occur on
this site under the current Special Land Use District No. 7
Be Surrounding Development Potential
1. Describe the potential for additional development in the
surrounding area, including Ithaca College's plans for future
development on its land holdings in the immediate vicinity of the
project site. (If no information on this is available from Ithaca
College, then provide a generic analysis of what could potentially
be built on their land under existing zoning. Include a statement
of any plans Ithacare may have for acquisition or development of
additional Ithaca College land in this area.)
)G. Appendices
The following are materials that may be added by the applicant in support of
the DEIS:
A. List of underlying studies, reports and information considered and
relied on in preparing statement
Be List of all federal, state, regional or local agencies, organizations..,
consultants and private persons consulted in preparing the statement
C. Technical exhibits (if any) at a legible scale
D. Technical studies, reports or other materials prepared by the applicant
in support of the statement that are too lengthy to include in the body
of the statement
E. Relevant correspondence regarding the project
F. Photographic or computer generated overlays demonstrating the effects
of the proposed and alternative configurations of the building(s) on the
view from several different locations and perspectives, including at least
the following:
10 North end of existing scenic overlook
2. South end of existing scenic overlook
36 North end of proposed scenic overlook extension
49 Northbound driving lane on Route 96B (exact location to be
determined)
5. West Hill (exact location to be determined)
G. Cross - section drawings demonstrating the effect of the proposed and
12
•
•
r.
u
alternative configurations of the building(s) on the view from the same
locations identified in XI(F) above.
13
• December 20, 1994
Planning Board
Town of Ithaca
126 E. Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Dear Planning Board Members:
COPY
This will confirm my trepeditations concerning the proposed Ithacare
facility on the Danby Road in the Town of Ithaca.
My first objection is the present siting plan for the facility. To
allow the Ithacare construction as proposed would devastate a unique
natural resource, namely the New York State designated scenic over-
look that now exists, There are few pan(Yramic sights anywhere to
rival that which now exists and would be destroyed if Ithacare were
allowed to proceed with its Draconian plans. Although Ithacare says
it will realign the overlook, far too much of the view would be
ruined forever and any loss of that scenic vista amounts to an act
of blatant visual pollution by Ithacare. With tourism the county's
second largest industry, the loss of that pristene view could have
a seriously negative impact on our area.
• My second objection is the callous disregard for the property values
of Danby Road homeowners demonstrated by Ithacare. The values of all
nearby homes Would be greatly dimished is this facility is allowed to
be built as proposed. Without the existing views, existing nearby
properties would retain only a fraction of their value and homeowners
would be forced to seek relief from the Town of Ithaca, thereby cost-
ing the township considerable sums of money, now and in the future.
•
My third objection is Ithacare's stated refusal to consider moving
the location of its proposed facility a few hundred feet to the west,
a move that would satisfy the concerns of area homeowners and those
wishing to protect the natural scenic beauty. Ithacare, a not -for-
profit business and therefore a tax - exempt business, claims moving
the proposed facility to a less sensitive spot on the property would
not be feasible, Still, they are prepared to ruin the vistas and
cost homeowners thousands - upon- thousands of dollars in lost property
values and taxes to the Town of Ithaca without ever demonstrating the
cost differential in making such a move.
As proposed, the Ithacare offering is a bad plan. It shows utter
disregard for the environment, the economic well being of the county,
the township and the area homeowners. It is an invitation to a
myriad of lawsuits, including taxpayer suits, and should be rejected
out of hand.
Sincerely
Michael A. Ro in;
248 Floral Avenue
Ithaca, New York 14850
ff 11 1
0
•
YNTEMA
993 DANBY ROAD
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 -5719
Mr. Jonathan Kanter AICP, Town Planner
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr, Kanter:
rpOp�
20 December 1994
Re: Scoping Outline Draft 3.0 - Ithacare
Your draft scoping outline is a fine one, and I hereby request that you and the Town
Planning Board accept and use it as a minimum, adding to and amending it in
accordance with public comments. The additions and changes I suggest are listed
below, referring to the pages, numbers, and letters in your Draft 3.0 Outline,
Page 1:
II. B. Summary of impacts. Other issues of controversy to include are:
Add : flora and fauna
Add: transportation and safety (both pedestrians and vehicles)
Page 2:
III, B. 2. and 3. Location - Description. Here, and wherever else the word "site" is
used in the scoping outline and the DEIS, it should be emphasized or at least noted
that the "site" is actually a ap rcel of 28.01 acres, and not merely the eastern 7± or 8t
acre portion previously proposed for the structure and parking.
C. Design and Layout,
Add: 4. Sewage/Wastewater. Quantity and variation with time, treatment
methods, lift- station(s). routing, sewer locations, etc.
Page 4:
IV, A. 3. a. Topography. "Steep Slopes" should be defined and mapped.
IV. B. 1. a. Surface water. "quantity" should be included in the examples.
Add: 2. Subsurface water.
Add: 2. a. Describe groundwater characteristics, including depth, direction of
f low and seasonal changes.
Add: 2. b. Identify present uses of groundwater on and near the project area
(i.e., public and private wells)
J
a a
Yntema to Kanter -2- 20 December 1994
• Page 5:
IV, C. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology.
1. Vegetation. The plant survey should cover the major growing period
between April and September, minimum. A year -round survey done at least at regular
one -month intervals would be best. The previous plant survey of this area was done
primarily in the late fall, after many of the spring- summer -early fall species were no
longer in evidence.
2. Fish and Wildlife. Your inclusion of both fish and migrating and resident
species of wildlife is excellent.
• BIRDS. A year -round survey /census, including the peaks of the
migration,by one or more experienced birders should be required, to get an accurate
picture of the birds in the project area.
• MAMMALS. Similarly, a year -round census by an expert wildlife
biologist, of the wildlife in the project area, should be required. I know from personal
experience that there are many more species of mammals besides deer in the area,
and on the parcel.
• OTHER. Timely censuses of other terrestrial and aquatic organisms
should also be required.
Page 6:
B. Land Use and Zoning. I hope that this time around, Ithacare will acknowledge
that there are residences to the east, west, and south of the project parcel, and give
their presence due consideration.
Page 6 -7:
C. Community Services.
Add: 10 g, educational facilities (Ithaca College's presence and its gerontology
programs are certainly noteworthy).
Page 7:
IV, E. 1. Visual resources.
b. The overlook description should acknowledge that "Ithacare's parcel"
actually includes portions of the marked parking spaces on the paved area, most of the
grassy area to the west and north, and all the slope down from the overlook.
C�
Yntema to Kanter
Page 8 - 9. Mitigation measures.
NATURAL RESOURCES.
A. Geology.
-3-
20 December 1994
Add: 2. Subsurface: use and re -use of excavated material.
Add: 3. Surface: stockpiling and re -use of topsoil.
B. Water Resources.
Add 2, Subsurface Water. Ensure no negative effects on existing groundwater
characteristics or wells near the project area.
C. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecolo_q
Add: 2, Vegetation: Clearing limitations, open spaces required to be left,
landscaping, etc.
Add: 3. Fish and Wildlife: Habitat to be
scheduling to reduce harmful
etc.
Page 9 - 10. Mitigation measures (cont'd).
HUMAN RESOURCES.
left or added for wildlife, construction
effects on resident and migrating birds,
A. Land use and zoning. Either here or elsewhere, mention should be made
that the only thing required for approval of a change in building configuration or
location on the parcel would be another meeting of the Town Board to amend the
SLUD #7.
B. Cultural Resources,
1. Visual resources: Either under "a." (redesigning the overlook), or as a
separate item "b", there should be a description, three elevations
(from the east, north, and south) and two cross - sections showing what
the "overlook extension" would look like.
Add: C. Other Resources. Include ways to mitigate:
• Add: C. 1. problems for vehicular traffic and pedestrians
.Add: C. 2. construction and other noises, dust, etc.
•
•
c
Yntema to Kanter
Page 10 -11 VIII, Alternatives.
A. 3. Alternative configurations.
-4-
20 December 1994
Add example: follow contours, having "upper" building stories on lower
slopes to reduce visual blockage from overlook - - i.e., rotate building
1800 from previous designs.
B. Alternative Sites. Clarify the meaning of "general level ".
Add: B.2. Other alternate sites. More than a dozen other parcels were the subject
of an Ithacare- sponsored study, and these sites should be considered as possible
locations for the project. If one alternative is "NO ACTION then these sites, and
possibly others, should be investigated and discussed in the DEIS.
Page 11.
IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. Change the wording of
the second sentence to read:
" Indicate in particular how resources associated with each portion of the
parcel to be considered for construction, for all the alternative sites on the
parcel, will be affected."
Page 11 -12,
Growth Inducing Aspects.
A. In the three places it occurs (A., A.1., A0 1.a), change the word "site" to "parcel"
Add: A. 1. c. What would be required to change SLUD #7 for future development?
Page 12 -13,
Appendices,
F. Change the wording to read: "Photographic or computer generated overlays
demonstrating the effects, of the proposed and alternative configurations and
locations on the parcel, of the building(s) on the view from several different
locations and perspectives, including at least the following:"
Add: 6. Stewart Park.
I�
�J
ft
•
Yntema to Kanter
Page 12 -13. Appendices (cont'd)
-5-
20 December 1994
G. Change the wording to read: "Cross- section drawings through the overlook
and any alternative building configurations and alternative locations on the parcel,
demonstrating the effect of the building(s) on the view from the same locations
identified in XI. F. above. Said cross - section drawings should extend from the overlook
into the valley and to the top of West Hill, or to Cayuga Lake, as appropriate."
Thank you for your attention and your consideration of my suggestions.
cc: All Town Planning Board Members
Sincerely,
�ohn A.
Y
0
r1
U
•
V
December 21, 1994
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
126 E. Seneca St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
To the Planning Board,
y �r
/ 1 . . r rr r• u
F
1,994
This is a transcript of my comments at last night's Planning Board hearing. Thank you for the
opportunity to express an opinion on the Scoping Outline for Draft Environmental Impact
Statement — Ithacare Senior Living Community (Draft 3.0; December 9, 1994).
My name is Michael Twomey and I am here as the president of Historic Ithaca, Inc., and as a
private citizen. I've brought with me two paintings of the view of Ithaca from South Hill. The
large one is the property of an elderly resident of Ithaca and I must return it to her immediately.
The painting was done in 1873 by an anonymous artist. The color photocopy [enclosed] is of a
painting done in 1872 by someone who signed his name Kensett. This is now in the possession of
the DeWitt Historical Society. The paintings show that this view has historical importance for
defining our identity in Ithaca. It is a trademark view of the city and lake. I've been throughout
the United States and I've seen lots of spectacular scenery. This view is one of the best views
I've seen anywhere and it's one of the reasons that I love Ithaca.
At Historic Ithaca we believe that architecture can and should compliment the natural
environment. Our concern here is the impact of the proposed Ithacare building on the view from
the state4unded overlook on Route 96B just above the Ithacare site. We are not opposed to
senior citizens. I think that some of the rhetoric about this issue unfairly caricatures the
opposition as opposition to senior citizens or opposition to Ithacare. That is not the case. Fifteen
years ago, I lived across the gorge from the present Ithacare. My wife did volunteer work there
and she used to bring our daughter along, which delighted the residents. Since then, that daughter
has returned on several occasions with the Ithaca Talent Education orchestra to give free concerts
for the residents. We are friends of Ithacare.
Also, Historic Ithaca has an interest in the present Ithacare building on Quarry St., since it's a
glorious example of institutional architecture. I'd like Mr. Macera and the Ithacare board of
directors to know that we would be interested in helping Ithacare as it wrestles with the
deposition of that structure.
Thus, I want to make it clear that Historic Ithaca's concern —and my concern--is to preserve the
spectacular, historic, trademark view of Ithaca that one has from the overlook on 96B for the tax-
paying public whose dollars paid for that overlook. One of our board members, Rick Lazarus,
drives past the overlook twice a day, five days a week, and he says that in daylight hours there is
nearly always at least one car there.
•
•
Historic Ithaca would like to raise the following two points for consideration at this time with
regard to section V.A ( "Significant Environmental Impacts ") of the Scoping Outline:
1. We have seen the sketch of the proposed new building in the Ithacare 20th anniversary
brochure [Ithaca's South Hill Senior Living Community — enclosed], which is available at Center
Ithaca. This sketch gives a bird's -eye view of the site and thus does not represent how a person
standing on the ground would see it. This sketch is therefore not accurate evidence as to the
extent that the building might or might not block the view.
It is our understanding that the Town of Ithaca required the developer to fly balloons from the
actual locations on the site of all the corners and peaks of the proposed building at the actual
height of the roof line. It is also our understanding that about 80% of the view from the overlook
would be blocked. But, because the results of this experiment have been disputed, Historic Ithaca
would like to propose that detailed photo or computer mock -ups from five different locations in
and around the overlook be made in order to show how the building would or would not block
the present view. Such a study would also show how alternate siting of the building would or
would not rectify any blockage. It is our understanding that under the Environmental Quality
Review Act an alternate site analysis is required, anyway.
2. One option that has been raised is putting a new overlook below Ithacare, or installing
a footpath from the present parking area to a viewing area below Ithacare. I'd like to point out
that although this might sound like a nice opportunity for the State and Ithacare to cooperate and
possibly improve on the current parking lot style overlook, there are some big drawbacks to this
proposal that have to be negotiated. One is that an overlook below Ithacare would be in
Ithacare's back yard, so to speak, and visitors there might feel like they were invading the privacy
of the residents. The other is that since we are a car culture it's doubtful that people will want to
park and then walk down through or along private property to see the view and then walk back
up to their cars. However, if these problems could be surmounted, and an attractive, private, non -
intrusive overlook could be installed below Ithacare, that would be acceptable to Historic Ithaca
and to me as a member of the public.
In closing, I'd like to say that Historic Ithaca recognizes that for the sake of economy of scale,
Ithacare wants the building as high as it is planned. But let's work together to save this view —this
spectacular, historic, trademark view of Ithaca - -for the tax - paying public who paid for and enjoy
the overlook.
Sincerely,
Q0,00e`�
Michael Twomey
President, Board of Directors
Historic Ithaca, Inc.
• 120 N. Cay.. - a V.
Ithaca, NY 14850
•
•
•
DOUGLAS R. FIRTH
989 Danbv Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
Telephone (607) 277 -0475
Jonathan Kanter AICP, Town Planner
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Mr. Kanter,
C(OPY
December 20, 1994
Below are my comments and suggestions for additions/revisions to the Draft Scoping Outline
(Revision 3.0).
Page 4, Section IV, Natural Resources, Subsection A.3.a. Propose that Subsection
A.3.a. (Topography) be revised to read:
a. Describe topography at project site (examples: slopes, prominent or unique
features). Include topographical map with areas of slope greater than 20
percent highlighted.
Comments: A highlighted topographical map showing areas of steep slope (> 20 %) would be
useful for easier identification of areas on the 28 acre site that would avoid these slopes.
Also, since engineering units of percent gradient are used to describe slope, it would be useful
that the map showing the topography of the 28 acre site convey percent gradient instead of
just showing topographical lines.
Page 7, Section IV, Human Resources. Propose addition of the following under
Subsection C. (Community Services):
2. Evaluate availability of and access to existing utility services to the site including
the following:
a. water
b. sewer
c. electricity
d. natural gas
Comments: When analyzing altematives, this evaluation would be helpful for understanding
potential problems encountered in accessing utilities.
L I
Page 8, Section V, Significant Environmental Impacts. Propose adding the following:
C. Existing Land Use
1. Analyze the impact of the proposed project relative to residents living in its
immediate vicinity. Include an analysis on the effect of the facility on residents'
property values.
Page 8, Section VI, Natural Resources, Subsection A.I.a. Propose revising this section
to read:
a. avoid construction on areas of slope greater than 20 percent.
Page 91 Section VI, Human Resources. Propose that Subsection A.I.a. be revised to
read:
a. design project to comply with existing land use plans and in a functional and
visually appealing way to set standard and precedent for future surrounding
land use.
• Comments: The Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7 designates that "Any significant
revisions to the Preliminary Site Plan (Drawing LS -2) made by L. Robert Kimball
Associates dated October 4, 1993 ... shall be submitted and approved by the Town
Board ... ". Therefore, the proposed project site plan may be completely different from that In
drawing LS -2 to mitigate significant environmental impacts and the Planning Board and
Applicant are not bound by this site plan or restrictions in the SLUD. A site plan that best
reduces the impacts found in the EIS should be presented. As established in the SLUD, this
may require the approval of the Town Board if the site plan changes are "significant ".
Page 10, Section VIII. Alternatives.
Comments: The State Environmental Quality Review Regulations 6 NYCRR Part
617.14(f)(5) specifically states that the alternatives presented should be "reasonable" and
"feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the project sponsor." That is
the alternatives that are presented should not be ridiculous or render the project infeasible.
Rather, the alternatives should result in the same or reduced levels of environmental impacts
while still making the project workable from the standpoint of the sponsor (see pages 64 - 66
of SEQR Handbook).
•
• Page 11, Section X.A.I.a.. Propose that Subsection a. be revised to read:
a. What are Ithacare's future plans for additional development on this site
(include a description of site access and a sketch of future site plans)
Page 12, XI. Appendices, Under Subsection F, add the following location:
6. From the center of the overlook at the NYSDOT sign.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Scoping Outline.
Sincerely,
Dougl fR. i rth
r�
xc. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members
•
y COPY Jay Mattison
985 Danby Road
Ithaca NY 14850 -5719
TEL 607.272.6157
FAX 607.272.4353
December 20, 1994
Jonathan Kanter
Town Planner
Town of Ithaca
Ithaca NY 14850
Dear Mr. Kanter, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members and Members of the Public:
RE: Scoping Outline for Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the
proposed Ithacare Senior Living Community (Draft 3.0)
I am providing a copy of this letter for the record and presenting my comments at the
public hearing on Tuesday, December 20, 1994,
The Scoping Outline for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Ithacare
Senior Living Community has been well constructed and deserves recognition as such.
Following are some specific points I feel need detailed or enhanced emphasis in the final
scoping outline document.
Page 2, Section III.C.4. This area needs specific definition with regard to flow rates,
percent capacity, and impact on the present system volume. This needs to be a
thorough analysis not simply the Town Engineer estimating the potential impact.
Page 4, Section
IV.A.3.a. The term 'steep slopes'
must be
defined in physical and
analytical terms,
with specific references, statutes or
standards
as documentation.
Page 6, Section IV.6.2.b. There should be detailed analysis of the physical
characteristics of the current and future development trends and pressures in the area
In particular, the evaluation of Ithaca College with a physical boundary on one side of
a row of single family housing and the proposed development of land on the other side
of this "island' of single family dwellings.
Page 7, Section N.C. Evaluate the proposed community and its impact on the current
residents in the vicinity, especially on the socio- economic aspects of this project's
addition to the neighborhood. This should include but is not limited to utility services,
traffic /transportation, inter - generational dynamics, and economic impact on real estate
and tax roles.
Page 8, Section.IV.C.. Evaluate the socio- economic impact of the proposed project on
the population in the vicinity and the effect on real estate and tax values.
t� -
Kanter- Mattison Ithacare...
page 2
December 20, 1994
continued...
Page 11, Section.X.A.1.a. Require Ithacare to present a comprehensive plan
documenting the future development on this site. This should include a review of the
Ithacare operating structure, management experience, finances, board membership and
conflict -of- interest potential.
Page 12, Section.Xl.F. Points as outlined are good, but technical expertise other than
Assistant Ithaca Town Planner or other Town of Ithaca employees should be sought to
present unbiased, technically sound judgements.
Ithacare is an organization that provides needed services to the greater Ithaca
community. I feel that Ithacare programs are beneficial in meeting an important role for senior
members of our community. I am not opposed to the building and developing a greater scope
of Ithacare's services on the parcel under consideration. I do feel that a better location of the
building on the site would meet the needs of seniors AND neighbors and the general public.
An optimal solution must be developed for the benefit of everyone.
After reviewing the material on file for this project, attending several meetings, and
.holding discussions with the parties involved, I. strongly feel that there is a large need to have
• ;accurate and credible data available. It is my opinion that considerable misinformation has been
presented or information based on innuendo has been presented as fact.
This is an. important project for the community. It is important that ' all sides be
researched and evaluated as the impact will outlast any of the parties involved.
Thank you for your consideration and attention.
encl.
Sincerely,
Jay Mattison
V
a •
•
TO: Jonathan Kanter, Town of Ithaca Planner
From: Deborah Martin S H
983 Danby RD Ithaca NY
Date: December 20, 1994
RE: Ithacare Draft Scoping Outline
I have studied the draft of the proposed draft Scoping outline and am in full support of the
scoping process being carried out as described,
feel there are several important areas which will be addressed, namely Description of the
Proposed Action (Section Ill) and Environmental Setting (Section I1) and Human Resources (A
through E).
Given the magnitude of this project I feel it merits a thorough and careful review in the early
developmental stages. Following the proposed scoping as a minimum would be a reasonable
start toward this review. The additional areas of significance should be added to provide the
full scope of the impact.
•
•
t
y
•
•
•
COPY
An Open Letter to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and the Residents of the Town of
Ithaca
Aging is inevitable. We are born, nurtured by our families, we start to live, love, and grow
to become independent, responsible, caring, enthusiastic and hopefully, happy. We attend
school, attain our degrees, choosing a profession that gives us the rewards we seek, be it
money, status, self - satisfaction or all of the above. We marry, or not, we have a family if
we choose. One day we look in the mirror. We are older, but we are still independent and
responsible and wish to remain as such; but now we move more slowly, we no longer drive
ourselves to our appointments and luncheons, we don't always have the stamina to perform
tasks that in prior years were a snap. Our families (those of us who have them) are busy
with their careers and families, rightfully so ... we have been there --we know!! We still need
challenges, but some of us have not been so fortunate. We need help walking, with
personal care, medication monitoring, and need the ingredient that has been necessary since
our birth. You can still label it nurturing. It means we still like to be challenged, both
physically and mentally. We have so much knowledge and experience to share if you have
the time to care. We know we are loved —but remind us. A little hug, a touch, a word.
Help us to remain important to society. We are not dead, we are in the sunset years. Help
us to enjoy them as we have much to contribute. You will follow sooner than you realize.
Ithacare's plans for its South Hill residence include over 60 one and two bedroom and
efficiency apartments. These apartments will help the rapidly growing group of independent
seniors who no longer wish to maintain a large home, but want an independent living
situation. Tenants will live in their apartments with security and the peace of mind that
being part of this new community will bring. Additionally, they will have access to all the
activities available to every resident, both on an off the Ithaca College campus, with groups
or individually as they choose.
Encourage Ithacare and let's build the new residence now. Help make the tomorrows
more fulfilling for all of us. To those of you who have negative feelings regarding the new
facility, spend a day at Ithacare, talk to residents, take the time to really listen openly. You
will be wiser and happier.
The Ithacare staff family is a very gifted and caring group. They are doing a super job —
Help them continue!! Quality matters!! Aging is inevitable -- -you say you care —do you??
The Ithacare residents do not have time for political games. The average resident age is 82.
Sincerely,
Anne Butler
N.B. My mother, Florence Suydam, spent the last year of her life as a resident of Ithacare.
The caring and love she received made this last year easier for her and for me. At the time
of her death in 1992, I pledged after my retirement from Cornell (July `93) that I would give
at least one day each week to Ithacare. This I have done. I have gained another family and
with this a package of joy and tears. I am receiving much more than I am giving. Ithacare
makes me smile.