HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1998-04-21TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 21, 1998
FILE
TOWN OE ii ACA
Date
__���
Cls
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 21, 1998, in Town Hall,
126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Larry Thayer,
Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barrier (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Director of
Engineering), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Christine Balestra (Planner).
EXCUSED: James Ainslie
4
ALSO PRESENT: Jane L. Hammond, Carol Murky, Fred Noteboom, Dan Hammer, Don R. Crittenden, Dick
Perry, Mary Jo Perry, Carl Sgrecci, Jim Dougan, Tim Tansey, Philip Runkel, Michael Villa, Peter Trowbridge,
David Herrick George Lavris, Bill and Janet Rochow, David Stipanuk, Ann Byrne.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 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 April 13, 1998, and April 15, 1998, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of
the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on
April 21, 1998. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1).
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York
State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: Persons to be heard.
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination, Modification of Subdivision Condition for deck addition 132
Woolf Lane.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:36 p.m., and read aloud from the
Agenda.
Daniel Hammer stated that he does not think that there are any environmental concerns for the
modification that are being requested. He thanked the board for the opportunity to talk to the board and referred
to the documents which the board members were given. Mr. Hammer referred to the memo from Christine
Balestra dated April 15, 1998 and the application that he and Don Crittenden filed for the modification. He
asked to add a few comments and highlight a few issues. Mr. Hammer stated that he owns the house at 132
Wolf Lane, which was built in November of 1988. Original plans indicated that there was a deck to be built on
it and all of the houses in the Westwood Hills development have decks on them. Dan McClure was the builder
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
and has since filed for bankruptcy and is no longer in business, therefore, was unable to complete the deck by the
agreed upon transfer date to them. Mr. Hammer stated he and Mr. McClure agreed to have Mr. McClure come
back after the closing and have a deck put on the property. It was again stated that in the original plans a deck
was clearly intended.
Mr. McClure stated that hereturned in the spring of 1989 and added the deck which he now finds as he is
preparing to sell the house, that the deck is in a 30 foot vegetative buffer zone which was provided for the
properties in the Westwood development. He assured everyone that there was no malicious intent on their part,
and he and Mr. Crittenden were unaware the buffer zone existed. Mr. Hammer stated he trusted McClure to
obtain all necessary building permits and since there were decks on the other houses in the Westwood
developments it never occurred to them that having a deck on their house would be a problem. It was clear in
the survey they obtained in selling preparation that they were in violation and that is the reason they came before
the board. He stated it was his mistake to trust McClure in obtaining the correct building permits for the deck.
The purpose of the buffer zone was to provide vegetative buffer area between the houses in the Westwood area
and the adjacent properties. He stated there is a 30 ft wide area of large pine trees that provide a buffer between
132 Woolf Lane and Eastern piece of property. Another reason for the buffer was that the neighbors around the
Westwood Hills Development would like to have a buffer to prevent against encroachment. He does have letters
from all the neighbors adjoining the property, the Lamberts and Nortons who own 128 and 130, stating they are
happy where the deck is now and it would cause more of a problem to move it. This is due to the fact that if it
were to be moved they would see it and where it is now, it is unseen.
Mr. Hammer states he is the owner of the adjacent property that is most directly affected and he has no
objects as to where the deck is. He states he is willing to take the risk of not being able to sell the property due
to the deck being in the buffer zone. It was also pointed out that there is a 196 ft wide on road frontage and that
there is ample room for someone to build a single family home without seeing the deck. The amendment he had
was solely for the deck and he has no intention of building other structures and asked for an exception in this one
case. Mr. Hammer felt it would be extreme hardship for himself and Mr. Crittender to have some kind of
modification due to the house being under contract to be sold and they could be sued for breech of contract.
Board Member Hoffmann asked for clarification on a few items stated by Mr. Hammer. It was stated
there was a 30 ft buffer of evergreens between the deck and the adjacent properties, she asked if some of the
evergreens were located on the adjacent properties.
Mr. Hammer stated the 30 ft buffer zones spreads through both properties.
Board Member Hoffmann questioned Mr. Hammer about being able to see the deck from the adjacent
property, lot 14.1.
seen.
Mr. Hammer answered the deck was seen through the trees, but in the winter the deck can be clearly
Board Member Hoffmann asked if it was all evergreens or if there were other trees.
Mr. Hammer stated there was an ample set of growth that is 6 to 12 ft high which actually over grows in
the summer and needs to be trimmed back.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED
Board Member Hoffinann asked Mr. Hammer if he was planning to retain parcel 14.1.
Mr. Hammer answered that parcel 14.1 would eventually be sold because his family is relocating. He
hopes to sell it to someone who is willing to put a single family house on the lot. There is a deed restriction on
the property stating a house must be built of a value no less than $120,000, and a single house only.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Modification of Condition 2(b) of Final Subdivision Approval, granted on
October 6, 1987, and modification of Section 33 Buffer Zone Requirement of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision
Regulations, for a deck addition to a home at 132 Woolf Lane, located in the Westwood Hills Cluster
Subdivision; Town of IthacaTax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.114; Residence District R -15, Daniel Hammer and
Wendy Hobble, Owners /Applicants; Don Crittendon, Crossmore Law Office, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as
Lead Agency in environmental review, and
3 The Planning Board, in granting Final Subdivision Approval on October 6, 1987, imposed certain conditions of
approval, as outlined in the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, including Condition 2(b), that there be at
least a 30 foot wide vegetative buffer along the entire perimeter of the property, except the portion adjacent
to the public open space, and
4. The applicant has submitted a request that a deck addition be permitted to encroach within the required 30 foot
buffer zone along the perimeter of the property, which would be approximately 19.4 +/- feet from the property
boundary, and
5. The Planning Board, on April 21, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey
Map- Lot Nos. 1, 2, & 3 Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York," prepared by Allen Fulkerson, L.S., of T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and
Surveyors, dated September 6, 1988 and most recently amended May 14, 1996, and other application materials,
and
6. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with
respect to the proposed modified subdivision conditions and requirements;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in
accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed
and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Bell, Thayer.
NAYS - None.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the SEQR Determination, Modification of Subdivision Condition for
deck addition, 132 Woolf Lane at 7:45 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of Condition 2(b) of Final Subdivision
Approval, which was granted on October 6, 1987, for the Westwood Hills ('lister fillhdivisinn_ in nrdpr to
permit a aecx aaaition to a home at 132 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 23441,114,
Residence District R45. Daniel Hammer and Wendy Hobbie, Owners /Applicants; Don Crittenden,
Crossmore Law Office, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Lawrence Thayer:
WHEREAS:
With no persons to be heard,
1. This action is Consideration of Modification of Condition 2(b) of Final Subdivision Approval, granted on October 6,
1987, and modification of Section 33 Buffer Zone Requirement of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, for
deck addition to a home at 132 Woolf Lane, located in the Westwood Hills Cluster Subdivision; Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.114; Residence District R -15. Daniel Hammer and Wendy Hobble, Owners /Applicants;Don
Crittendon, Crossmore Law Office, Agent, and
2. The Planning Board, in granting Final Subdivision Approval on October 6, 1987, imposed certain conditions of
approval, as outlined in the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, including Condition 2(b) that there be at least a 30
foot wide vegetative buffer along the entire perimeter of the property, except the portion adjacent to the public open
space, and
3. The applicant has submitted a request that a deck addition be permitted to encroach within the required 30 foot buffer
zone along the perimeter of the property, which would be approximately 19.4 +/- feet from the property boundary, and
4. The Planning Board, at the Public Hearing on April 21, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part II
prepared by planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map- Lots No. 1, 2, & 3 Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision,
Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Allen Fulkerson, L.S., of T.G. Miller
Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated September 6, 1988 and most recently amended May 14, 1996, and
additional application materials, and
5. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental revif
has, on April 21, 1998, made a negative determination of environmental significance.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants the above referenced modification of Condition 2(b) of the Final Subdivision
Approval, granted on October 6, 1987, and modification of Section 33 Buffer Zone Requirement of the Town of Ithaf
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 5 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Subdivision Regulations, in order to permit the deck addition located on 132 Woolf Lane, as shown on the survey entitle
"Survey Map- Lots 1, 2, & 3 Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County
New York," prepared by Allen Fulkerson, L.S., of T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated
September 6, 1988 and most recently amended February 11, 1998, subject to the following condition:
a. That no additions to the deck nor any future replacement of the deck shall encroach further into the buffer zone
than the existing deck, as shown on the above referenced survey map.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Thayer, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the Modification of Subdivision Condition for deck addition, 132 Woolf
Lane at 7:51 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING, Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board re arding the
enactment of a aronosed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the
Construction and Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. With no persons to be heard,
Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m.
Attorney Barney explained the situation in the town of Ulysses where a cellular tower was applied for and
resulted in quite a bit of controversy and action by the Planning Board of Ulysses. It has generated a lot of
interest by a lot of other municipalities. The technology and licensing provisions authorized by the FCC are
going to permit another range of services somewhat similar to the cellular telephones but probably requiring
more antennas closer together than cellular telephones. This will probably result in a number of applications in a
number of municipalities. He feels the town of Ithaca will not be that affected because it is in the wrong place.
The Town of Ithaca is not that hilly, and towers require height. Also the Town of Ithaca does not have the
population basis for it like the city. There is a concern that the towers at the present are unregulated in the
ordinance of the Town of Ithaca. At the request of the Town Board, they took up the question of drafting some
legislation to see if they could impose some regulations to the extent that they are permitted to do so under
Federal Communications Act and the amendments to that act which became valid in 1996.
The result regulates two way towers, it does not, at this point, regulate broadcast towers or one way
communication towers. It is designed and aimed at cellular operations. The reason the broadcast towers were
not addressed was because they were already somewhat regulated in this area which is limited to agricultural
zones. It is also in legislation pending, and may already be passed, in congress will either limit or expand or
eliminate the ability to regulate certain protest types of towers, particularly those related to Direct Television
which is the next wave of technology. This was a targeted type of legislation aimed at what is anticipated to be
a possible problem here in the town. It allows these towers to be subject to a special permit, sets up criteria for
granting the permit, encourages co- location of towers, establishes dimensional sizes of lots and the tower,
lighting and marking, provides for the to town for hiring their own consultants to review the proposals and
charge back the cost of that review back to the applicant. Requires the engineering to meet the requirements of
the FCC and general engineering standards and has provisions of the removal of the towers that are no longer
needed.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 6 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox asked if it required any inspections.
Attorney Barney responded that inspections were required.
Board Member Hoffmann asked about "encouraging" shared use of existing and future towers. She
wished to see a stronger word than encouraging to be used.
Attorney Barney replied he needed to go back to phasylis. He does not feel that it can be mandated
because there can be legal and technical reasons why co- locations can not occur. The legislation has a provision
that it is the first preference, and is one of the criteria. It does need to be demonstrated by the applicant that co-
location is not possible for technical or legal reasons.
J
Board Member Hoffmann would like for them to consider a stronger word. Also pertaining to this
amendment, on page 3 there was the last point under 4E, it talks about the property owner or owner of the
existing Telecommunications Facility, it refuses to allow such a qualification. She asked if the owner could
refuse without any particular reason.
Attorney Barney gave the example of if she were to own a tower that was designed to hold only one
antenna, and he was an applicant that wanted to put a second antenna on her tower, there is nothing that the
Town of Ithaca can do as a municipality that says she must accept his application to put his antenna on her
tower. What has been done is for the future, is an applicant must accept to accommodate two other antennas.
It has been built into the Town of Ithaca's permitting process. Attorney Barney does not think there is any way
to go back on a permit without compensating.
Board Member Hoffmann stated it only referred to existing facilities and asked if the Town of Ithaca
currently has any facilities.
Attorney Barney answered that he did not think the town did in the sense of towers and he was not sure
about the building at South Hill. The towers that have generated quite a bit of discussion in the town was
WTKO, when they went to night broadcasting they got annoyed with the town and moved the tower the tower
across the line to the Town of Danby.
towers.
Board Member Thayer asked if it referred to two way towers.
Attorney Barney replied it did refer to two way towers, but he does not know of any existing large
Board Member Bell asked what the tower on Bostwick Road.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz answered that the tower was in the Town of Enfield and explained that it
was a cellular phone tower. He stated the Town of Ithaca does have two radio towers, WICV and WVVR.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 7 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated she was turned off by the mention barbed wire at the top of fences
which are on some of the towers, but she then noticed the planning board can not require it in places where it is
not necessary. Board Member Hoffmann then asked if the towers should be dismantled entirely if it has been
damaged.
Attorney Barney stated he thought it depends upon what had occurred. If it was not going to be used,
then the abandonment section would come into play and they would have to remove it entirely. Or if they were
dismantling it for temporary purposes basically to make it safe, they would be able to repair the tower and then
restore it.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she understood that it could be dismantled for repairs and then be
restored. Otherwise she likes it very much. Especially the provision that within a certain amount of time the
towers should be removed if there is no technology which makes them obsolete. This is good planning for the
future.
Board Member Bell stated he has a number of suggestions for strengthening parts. He asked Attorney
Barney how much of this planning was coordinated with other towns and if this was only the Town of Ithaca's
ordinance.
Attorney Barney stated that the Town of Ithaca represents six municipalities and five of them are in this
process.
Board Member Bell asked who represents the municipalities.
Attorney Barney stated that his office represented the municipalities, so they have been working with the
towns of Danby, Caroline, Ithaca and the Village of Lansing. As a result they have seen a number of ordinances
and this was tailored to the Town of Ithaca as in the sense it was tailored to conform to our zoning ordinances,
and many of the provisions over lap with what they have done with other municipalities.
Board Member Bell asked if any of this based on the material from the New York Planning Federation.
Attorney Barney replied that it was in part based on one of the county planning, and the frame work
started there. They have an opt that has been trying to sell their services to develop their these ordinances for
Monroe Telecom. One of the communities they are working with chose to work with Monroe Telecom and they
have their ordinance report data. Attorney Barney said they looked at their report data and robbed a few
provisions and he did not think anything in the law was original. He stated Board Member Hoffmann was very
helpful. Her daughter - in-law works for the FCC and they spoke with her and she provided them with
information data.
towns.
Board Member Bell asked if what the Town of Ithaca does with the ordinance get filtered out to other
Attorney Barney stated that it would work both ways.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 8 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED
Board Member Bell stated one of his questions related to the first question Board Member Hoffmann
raised which is in the purpose section. She picked up on the word encouraging to use towers existing and future
towers. He thinks this may be a bit of a stretch, and may not be appropriate, but wishes to throw it into the
discussion mix. That is whether the Town of Ithaca could not only encourage the use of other towers of existing
or future, but also if they could encourage the use of this no tower cell technology which is being used in other
cities. It basically creates many cells which use infrastructure in place for cable television and hangs low antennas
off the cable and then uses the cable to transmit the messages to the central facility. Then it is rebroadcast where
ever it needs to be broadcast. It totally eliminates cell towers. He does not think legally that the Town of Ithaca
would be able to develop to far in pushing the applicant to do a different technology. It seems like it may be
going to replace traditional cell technology of today, and possibly quite soon.
Attorney Barney responds that he thinks it could be done, but he does not think it should be put into the
ordinance that is governing the Telecommunications tower. It might discourage the construction of towers and
he is not quite sure if they want to come out as negative as that.
Board Member Bell stated he is not suggesting it in a negative sense, more in a positive sense, just as they
used the word encouraging with the other towers. In the same sense that they look at this alternative technology
which does not even use towers. He says it may be a bit of a stretch and he is not sure if it should be in the
ordinance, but he wanted to have it thought about.
Attorney Barney states they could probably put in encouraging alternative technologies that minimize the
number of individual towers.
Board Member Bell there is a provision on the falling zone of the towers, dimensional standards, the fall
zone around the towers. He asked if there is any concern about where the tower could fall in a storm or some
other disaster, but is there any concern about the zone of impact actually being bigger than the height of the
tower used as a radius via the tower actually throwing parts off as it falls.
Board Member Hoffmann stated or falling on a tree which topples over farther, or even a utility pole.
Attorney Barney said that this is typical of ordinances. He did not think there was any reason why they
could not include the height of the tower plus the factor. It should not be a large part because the height of the
tower is 250 ft which mandates a 500 ft wide piece of land at this time. This would result in becoming fairly
sizable in terms of your mandates. Some of the tower ordinances do not use a fall zone tied to the height of the
tower, but is tied to the design to break point of the tower. They actually design the tower to have a weak point
where the tower will break off and the fall zone is calculated at where that break zone is. Which is particularly
true in the broadcast type of tower. In selecting this we tended to go with what most of the other ordinances had
provised.
Board Member Bell asked about the height issue, where they actually
remember reading about a height.
Attorney Barney answered he did think that is because any height of
variance. There are ordinances that have had height limitations in them where
them do not and they encourage the height to be less 200 ft which is the cut
talked about the height, he did not
excess 36 R is going to require a
they put an outside limit. Most of
off point for lighting and radiation
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 9 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
purposes. Before we did this we built sufficient criteria that in terms of examining entire the application the
height will be looked at and if it actually needs to be as high as originally applied for or whether technically and
with the help of consultants, a lower height can be used. The is not any absolute sealing on the height in the
ordinance.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that since the proposed law does not limit these towers to any
particular zone, a controlling height provision limit for each zone per structures other than buildings being
controlled for that zone.
Board Member Bell asked if it was a bad idea to put in a maximum height.
Attorney Barney stated the heights he's seen are 140, 150, 160 ft which are tied to tree lines, in order to
collate you have to have towers with your antennas 20 ft a part so that you can have 3 on a tower, the tower has
to be above the tree line and 60 ft is added to that it could be done. He said it could be done, but the codes and
ordinance committee had in mind was to look at each individual one as it comes through the door to know how it
is to be based upon the circumstances for that particular location and that particular application.
Board Member Bell stated he has a concern that shows up in 3 different places, page 2,4 and 5, that
concern deals with birds. On page 2, 3d, he is very happy to see it encourages the tower to be designed and
constructed in a manner that minimizes visual impact and adverse impact on migratory birds and other wildlife.
He is glad to see that but he really does not think it goes far enough. Migratory birds are not the only type of
birds that crash into towers. There are birds that stay here year round that crash into towers a lot too. He feels
that this is definitely a big hazard to birds and he would like it not just to say migratory, but just all birds.
Migratory can be a problem because you can have a whole flock crash into these towers which can be even
worse. He thinks that is the worse of the two problems and he would like to see it say all birds.
Attorney Barney asked if wildlife would cover birds too.
Board Member Bell said he supposed it would, but by specifying migratory, what normally comes to
mind when you say wildlife is mammals that are on the ground and not birds, it does not just imply birds.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that migratory birds, local birds, and other wildlife should be added.
Migratory birds are a special case. She attended the presentation that legal women go to organize about the
cellular towers and it was explained the reason the migratory birds have problems is because when there are
lights on the towers on a misty night when there are tiny droplets in the air that magnify the light, the birds get
confused and they just do not fly straight through they keep circling in this area. As they circle, they keep hitting
the various sky wires, so it is especially difficult where there are sky wires. Thousands of birds have been killed
this way on one occasion, but that is the migratory birds.
Board Member Bell states migratory birds are a problem.
Attorney Barney states his concern is that there is a lot of wildlife that can be affected by these including
birds, and the fencing, the security provision. He thinks they have covered by using the phrase and other wildlife
so that it is an opportunity, he just thinks local birds are a form of wildlife. Bird, insect, squirrel, chipmunk, they
are all wildlife and it seems that they would be covered by this. If they start to denominate to many things we are
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 10 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
going to start saying well how far down the list before we stop. The effort here was to pick the migratory birds
because they were a particular circumstance that come up in the Codes and Ordinances Committee, and they
added other wildlife to pick up other birds that may be affected in this particular circumstance.
Board Member Bell states he does not want to beat his point to death, but he wanted to say just one more
thing. Other wildlife are not a particular hazard here, the hazards are birds. Ground animals are really not going
to be affected by this but birds are. Assemblyman Lester introduced some legislation about this, about cell
towers, and he enters a press release that said he expects some projection to something like we will have 200,000
cell towers across the United States. If every one of these towers kills 100 birds, then were are talking about
millions of birds being killed by these things. It's a major brand new impact, birds are being greatly reduced in
populations any way before these things came along. He would like to see the word birds as well as migrating
birds, and other wildlife. He appreciates the settlties of the language, but he is really suggesting they use the
words birds.
Board Member Hoffmann states she has no problem with adding birds in addition to migratory birds.
Board Member Bell explains that there is a gentlemen from a college in Pennsylvania named Dan Quinn
who did a thesis on the impact of birds crashing into cell towers and he thinks they should find out from him
what he could tell them. He is concerned about another section on page 5 which relates to birds which is one of
these kind of basic environment conflicts where what is good for the environment in one way is bad for the
environment in another way. He really does not know the answer, but is concerned about the language on the
top in section 2, Appearance in Buffering, b2, says that were are encouraging, we are talking towers that look a
like, and that the tower be camouflaged and blend in with the surroundings to the extent such alterations does
not impair the ability of the facility to perform its function. Above that in number 1, it says the tower should
galvanized finish or be painted gray above the surrounding tree line and gray or green below the tree line. He
does not know enough about the birds to know for sure on this one, but he is also concerned that while were
making these towers less visible to us on the skyline, which is definitely the admirable thing to do, we are also
making the towers invisible to the birds, or less visible to birds. He is not sure if that is the right thing to do.
There might be a way to make them more visible to birds and still accomplish the goal of less visible to us, he
does not really know but would like to look into the question. Especially if it is a gray day and it is a gray tower
I sure would not want to be a bird flying around it.
Director of Planning Kanter stated his understanding from hearing the same gentlemen from the Lab of
Urothology is that when it is very hazy or other adverse weather conditions where the visibility of the tower
would not really matter what color it was. So he is not sure if it is on the balance of something we should have a
concern with as opposed to the visual impacts in this case.
Board Member Hoffmann states she does not remember this case being brought up in the meeting she
attended.
Director of Planning Kanter it really had to do with haze, rain, wind condition where the birds actually
get confused and end up swarming in circles around the towers.
Board Member Hoffmann states that it does not mean that it is not a problem, she just does not
remember.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE I I APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED
MOTION by Eva Hoffman, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
1. The Town Board has proposed a "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the
Construction and Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities," and
2. Said proposed local law would provide standards through a special approval process for the siting, design,
maintenance and removal of telecommunication towers and related facilities within the Town of Ithaca, and
3. The Town Board referred said proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation,
and
4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 21, 1998, has reviewed the above - referenced local law, and
a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II, prepared by the Town planning staff for the Town Board,
which will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed local law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance, hereby finds that:
a. There is a need for the proposed local law regarding the construction and maintenance of
telecommunication facilities, as stated in Section 70A - "Purpose" of that proposed local law, and
b. The existing and probable fixture character of the Town will not be adversely affected; and
C. The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and will
provide the Town with reasonable controls regarding the construction and maintenance of
telecommunication facilities within the Town of Ithaca; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the
proposed "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Construction and
Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Kenerson, Thayer.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the discussion of the Construction and Maintenance of
Telecommunication Facilities at 8:22 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 12 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Determination of Significance of Environmental Impact regarding
the proposed rezoning, subdivision and site plan approval for the proposed construction of two buildings
one a 46 unit - 53 bed assisted living facility (approximately 28,800 +/- square feet), and the other a 32
unit - 36 bed Alzheimer /memory -care facility (approximately 18,800 +/- square feet), to be known as
Sterling House and Woven Hears of Ithaca respectively, including parking, landscaping and other site
improvements, to be located on 8.24 +/- acres at the intersection of NYS Rte.96 /Tru mans burg Road and
Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2, Residence District R45. Richard and Mary
Perry, Owners; Tioneer Development Companv. LLC, Applicant; Michael J. Villa, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8.27 p.m., and read aloud from the
Agenda. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board will set time a side for public comment.
Michael J. Villa with Pioneer Development Company stated he was present for a SEQR Determination
and also would like stated for the record he has two letters, one from the Department of Social Services of
Tompkins County and the other from Office of Alzheimer's Association. For this evenings SEQR presentation
we have Peter Trowbridge from Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape and Architect and Dave Herrick from TG
Miller. Also tonight Mr. and Mrs. Perry, who own the property, are back from Florida and have graciously
appeared this evening. He stated he would let Peter Trowbridge take it from there.
Peter Trowbridge with Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape and Architect representing this project for both
the Perry's and Pioneer. Just for clarity with the public's concern there are two buildings that have been
proposed for this project. Each of the two buildings is represented in elevation form the front. One is a 46 unit,
53 bed, assisted living facility upscale nursing facility. The second is a 32 unit, 36 bed, Alzheimer's Memory Care
Facility. Relative to SEQR issues there are several questions that the board raised at our sketch plan review
and a number of issues we would to discuss relative to SEQR. The first one that came up last time was a
consistency with surrounding land use. What we have provided for you in your packet is a list of health care
facilities on Trumansburg Road. There 8 within the Town of Ithaca, one in the City of Ithaca in a relatively short
distance, with less than a mile area all related to health care, skilled nursing facilities. It is our view that this
particular use in this location is consistent with other land uses that currently exist along Trumansburg Road
between Guthrie and the city and the hospital. Also when we look at the language of the Comprehensive Plan
for the Town of Ithaca within the residential zone we find that, this includes nursing homes and health care
centers, so we also believe that within the zone itself in the Comprehensive Plan that there is consistency with the
plan. He would also like to speak a little bit about the 1989 Master Plan that the Perry's put together with
Tommy Kneiderkom and Peter Novelli as engineer.
When the Perry's were considering Perry Lane and the subdivision in the wood lot at the west end of
their property, the town requested the Perry's to do an over all plan that showed all the possible land uses for the
farm at that time. Just as a refresher, to clarify how this project fits into the 1989 Master Plan. As you know
Perry Lane currently exist, and there are a number of people in the room that live on that particular cul -de -sac, in
addition to that he's not sure everyone is aware that there is also a second subdivision was Riley Drive and
Joseph Place. These are another group of lots that are also approved as part of the subdivision. In addition to
that, at the corner of Bundy and Trumansburg Road, the plan for the Perry Farm talks about adult residential
community development. We believe that not only consistency along Trumansburg Road, but consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan, and consistency with the Master Plan that the Town of Ithaca requested the Perry's in
1989 as associated with this subdivision. This is provided as a piece of background.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 13 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Richard Perry read from a prepared statement as follows: "As the owners of Shalebrook Farm, Jo and I
thought it would be appropriate to make a few comments regarding the farm's history, our involvement with it,
the current financial realities of the situation, and the project being discussed tonight. We have literally invested
our lives in this property and we share some very strong feelings about the land and how we would like to see it
used. We acquired the farm Howard Riley, one of my Cornell professors, in 1950, shortly after I graduated from
the Agricultural School. We made our living for nearly 40 years by working the land and maintaining a dairy
until 1987 when we had the heard because I no longer able to cope with the physical demands of milking cows.
During that time, the community grew up around us on three sides. None of the homes on Oakwood Lane and
Brookfield Road within the city were there when we bought the farm. We watch the construction of Candlewick
Apartments and many of the homes on Bundy Road from our front porch. With these developments came the
expansion of municipal water and sewer services. We even granted an easement to the Town. of Ithaca years ago
allowing it to run a water main from Bundy Road to Mecklenburg Road across the farm so it could serve the
homes on West Haven Road. As part of its planning the town also zoned the farm R15.
It became pretty clear to us that eventually our property would cease to function as a farm and would
yield to another use. Very few people are aware of this, but over 30 years ago, we turned down an opportunity
to sell the very corner being discussed tonight for what was a lot of money at that time. It would have more than
paid mortgage. We wanted to keep the property as an operating farm as long as we could, but had we sold the
course of development in Tompkins County might have been considerably different. The prospective buyer was
Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge. Instead, it became the first major construction on Triphammer Road. As I
have already stated, we wanted to continue living on the farm and work the land as long as I could still do that
part of it and also have some influence over how it was developed. The thought of having nearly three houses on
every acre of the property, as allowed under the R 15 Zoning, didn't have any appeal for us. Consequently, we
sought and received approval for the lots, now located on Perry Lane. We thought with the help of the people
who built their homes on the lots, we could set the standard for what some day will be done with a good deal of
the rest of the farm.. We think we succeeded in that regard. It is a lovely neighborhood with large lots and very
attractive homes. And well over $2 million has been added to the assessment base of the town as a consequence
of what is taken place there."
Contrary to what some people may think, however, that hasn't been a gravy train for us. After having
been debt free for a number of years, we had to borrow substantially just as we were retiring to make the quarter
of a million dollar investment in the road, water, and sewer systems for Perry Lane. All of which were given to
the town as part of the approval process. Five of these lots remain, unsold, after 8 years. Under present
conditions it is going to be a long time before there is sufficient demand to warrant the development of more lots
for homes on our property. In the time being, the financial burden of trying to carry the farm without the support
of the an active dairy operation is simply becoming prohibited. Last year the Town of Ithaca began to apply its
water and sewer assessment formula to the entire farm. This resulted in an increase in our taxes of over $5000.
1 emphasize that was just the increase and currently we don't even have reasonable access to the sewer system
for our home. In addition to we paid $3250 in regular Town and County Taxes and $5850 in School Taxes on
the farm. We also paid $7200 in taxes on the 5 unsold lots in the development, including $1330 in Water and
Sewer Assessments on the very systems we paid to install and gave to the town. That all adds up to over
$21,000 in taxes for one year.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 14 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
We can't even begin to cover a third of that cost with the sales of crops from the land. Our auditing
from the dairy heard and that has been gone for over 10 years now. In our planning for the farm, we always felt
the property closest to Trumansburg Road was best suited for some kind of health related facility. It is unlikely
people would want to build individual homes that close to the road and proximity to the hospital and several
doctor's offices, seem to make this an ideal site for something of that nature. We think the Sterling House and
the Sterling Cottage facilities will be fine additions to our community and that they and the residents will make
good neighbors. So for us, the time has come to face the realities of the situation and accept our limitations,
both fiscally and physically. We are proposing this project in our front yard and no one else's. If it is approved
and I can ride a tractor for few more years, may be we can keep the remaining land facing Bundy Road open a bit
longer, but that too, will eventually come to an end and the community needs to prepare itself as have we to
accept that. Thank you."
A-
Peter Trowbridge stated that Mr. Perry's statement provided a background to the planning that has been
going on for roughly 10 years for the Perry parcel. One of the other issues that springs from that is the visual
assessment of the Sterling House and Sterling Cottage. Last week, early in the week, they went out to the field
to prepare a visual assessment technique that he uses which is putting up helium balloons at the highest elevation
of the peak of the house. They took photographs, and took 2 or 3 different rolls of film from various vantage
points to try to determine what the worst case scenario is from several different points relative to what one sees
looking from the west towards the building. What is seen is two different views from Perry Lane from
Shalebrook. They were standing on the Perry farm right behind the developed parcels along Perry Lane and
what they were able to do was look at the eastern most, highest ridge, highest point of the buildings. The eastern
most ridge of the building which would make the worst case furthest out in the view and the highest point. What
they did not do was look at all the complex nature of the roof. They just took the very highest points. So what
is seen is two gray lines, worse possible scenario, that is standing on the ground. That is not on a first or second
floor in a house, obviously more will be seen higher up. So if someone was standing in their backyard along the
Shalebrook project and they took the highest point and drew a line, that is the amount of view that would be
obstructed from those locations. They looked at on one end the view nearest to Bundy Road, right at the
intersection of Perry Lane and Bundy Road, and from the other end the extreme south end of Perry Lane. As
you move up obviously there is a taupe rise, and the higher you get the more view you see. It is hard to pick
this out in the enlargements, but you can see the Candlewick Apartments just to the left to these gray areas. In
both cases, there continues to be lake view. In fact, the Candlewick Apartments also are right behind the
developed areas of Sterling House and Sterling Cottage. They tried to allow those to come through.
This is actually two different buildings. There is a slight step there, so Sterling House is this and Sterling
Cottage is that (Peter Trowbridge was pointing at diagrams while speaking). There would be potentially,
depending upon where you are, a break between the two.
Board Member Hoffinann asked if Peter Trowbridge could show the highest point.
Mr. Trowbridge explained the two ridge lines on the diagram, and what they were looking at were the
easterly most, highest ridge, the farthest out in the view. What they are able to do is put balloons and actually
get a line that they are then strike, so the calibrated height from the ground and abstracted that line. There was
another part of the view issue that they were asked to take a look at last time, that was drawing a section in an
elevation at the entrance to this project from Bundy Road. What this is it shows the section line through the
sight relative to the buildings. What you find (demonstrating to the board) the entrance drive on Bundy Road is
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 15 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
relatively flat, they did not want to provide any gradient of any considerable dimension. They had people
coming in, and was concerned about icing and traffic. So this whole loop is relatively flat which sets the grade
for the two buildings. As you can see, these two buildings are on a level plane. Also the way the buildings are
articulated that there is a lot of change in material, in dornering, so he thinks the overall affect will appear to be a
number of buildings rather than one monolithic building. This is due to the siding, coloring, the dornering, the
roof lines change over that distance.
Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Trowbridge where one be standing or driving by when they see the
roof line.
Mr.Trowbridge responded they would be almost at the entrance drive. (He pointed to the sectional line)
they have taken the view at the entrance, so what would be seen is the full northern elevation,of both buildings.
Board Member Thayer stated that the trees were all higher than the roof line which tends to obstruct the
view also.
Mr. Trowbridge responded the trees that were being seen were actually be projected up from the planting
plan and, they were trying to make this area as residential as possible. So the plantings are residential and the
nature of trees are projected up with about 8 to 10 years of growth on then. This is the view you would get in
about 8 years time.
Board Member Bell asked if the section line such that below the green shading is the existing section.
Mr. Trowbridge answered that this was the proposed section, and he has another section that shows the
existing and proposed in another area. This is the proposed section line drawn just behind the drainage ditch on
Bundy Road.
Board Member Bell asked if it was further back.
Mr. Trowbridge answered it was section of elevation, so you are cutting a section through and it is
everything you see behind the section. He states that you come in on the level, so the slope basically pitches
away towards Trumansburg Road. Peter Trowbridge was pointing on an enlarged sketch the grading on the
proposed parcel. He explained that the buildings would actually be pushed down into the sight, at some points
the buildings are actually 20 ft lower than the existing grade. This helps in reducing the visibility from the west.
Mr. Trowbridge stated that there were three issues that they wished to discuss. The first issue was
presented in a diagram looking from the west looking east. This represented what you would see when directly
driving by the complex of Sterling House. Another was that they were trying to balance the cut and fill on the
site. He stated there would be slightly steeper slopes along Trumansburg Road and at the western edge of the
site. They needed to create a large flat area, since the buildings do not step, they have to create one large flat
area. Earth and brumes along Bundy Road to provide some immediate screening. They have also enhanced it
with planting, which should give it a residential character. Glare is a problem with elderly population, so they
tried to make the light source almost invisible and still have adequate lighting. He stated there was a concern
with traffic at the intersection of Bundy and Trumansburg Road. Looking at Health Care work times, they tend
to be slightly off peak. The Health Care workers would come and leave in various shifts. This would not create
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 16 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
any great amount of traffic at one time. The most workers would be during the day, and decreasing in the
evening.
They hope is that not every employee does not come from Ithaca. Some people will come from the north
making a right -hand turns. The big traffic concern is making the left -hand turn going north on Trumansburg
Road.
Mr. Trowbridge stated another concern was public transportation. They were in touch with Tompkins
County Transit, and they would on their south route, if there were enough demand, come on site to pick up and
drop off He stated Tompkins County Transit was quite flexible on public transportation.
Mr. Herrick with TG Miller Engineers provided pictures of the site lines to the Planning Board. He
stated the intersection concern was with the left hand turn off Trumansburg Road. It was explained that there
were generous site distances and he felt with proper attention to driving, people could make these movements.
Also the peak time of traffic did not coincide with the shift changes.
Board Member Thayer stated the Board's main concern was with the traffic behind the car making the
left -hand turn. He wondered if there was any possibility of obtaining a left -hand turning lane proposed.
W. Herrick stated they would have to convince the DOT for the added pavement.
Board Member Thayer stated another concern was why the road had not been straightened.
Mr. Herrick responded he did not know why with it being a county road. He stated that the skew was
not preferred, it is still acceptable at a 70 degree angle in terms of the degree. He is not sure of any concerns the
county might have with making it perpendicular with the highway.
a day.
Director of Engineering Walker stated he did not know it the county would straighten the road.
Mr. Herrick stated he could discuss it with the county and see if there were any concern.
Board Member Thayer asked what the visiting hours of the site would, if they were set hours or 24 hours
Chairperson Wilcox asked who should address the county on the angle of the road.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the County Public Works Department had been notified of the project.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the possibility of the Mecklenburg Heights Development and the connecting
road. That it might have a long term affect.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the DOT really had the jurisdiction over the intersection. He stated
they had received a letter dated April 20, 1998 from the NYS DOT indicating based on the information provided,
it appears the site related traffic will not be a concern. In this response if they had concerns they would have
indicated something.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 17 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED
Mr. Villa stated there was not a limitation on when visitors could come. Most visitors come around or
after 5:00 p.m. and leave about 9 or 10 p.m. Also many visitors come on the weekend which off peak time from
working traffic.
Board Member Thayer asked how many extra cars it might create.
Mr. Villa responded that it increases about 20 %. It is broken down to 4 to 5 cars a night as far a
visitation, Monday through Friday. On Saturday and Sunday there would probably be a little.
Mr. Herrick stated the cut and fill method of leveling the area for the buildings presents some concerns
with some temporary swales. What they are proposing to do is construct temporary swales and lead it down to
some grading which would ultimately become some permanent basin for the facility. Constructed grading is
needed for this basin and is used for siltation basin. To convey from the areas that are disturbed any siltered
water down to that point would drop out. David Herrick was showing the drainage plans on diagrams and stated
they would install silt fences and hay bale dikes along those drainage ways in order to pick up silt dropping.
Addressing the larger issue of the watershed. The property is at the corner of Bundy and Trumansburg
Road, and is also at the lower end of small watershed on the Perry farm. With their grading and construction of
the new driveway to the Perry farm, they are maintaining the watershed distribution. Additional areas are not
being added into the sensitive watershed. He explained the basin will pick up the run off from the new developed
areas. As a result of the grading, some detention will be provided by the flat grades and the pipes sizes they are
using. They are obligated to conform as a minimum with the speedy permit requirements for storm water
discharges. In projects of this size, they exceed the five acre thresh hold. So in addition to meeting any
requirements that Director of Engineering Walker would have, they are held to attenuating the peak flow of the
two, ten, or hundred year rainfall events. That is where their basin for the outlet structure provide here. There
are some issues that need to be addressed with the DOT which is specifically how the interface at their ditch
with the single pipe that comes off of the site. These technical difficulties will be worked out with the state
starting Friday and continuing. The erosion insultation measures will stay on site, and will retained throughout
construction, and have to be in place until they get the permanent grass and sod developed on the property.
They do have some areas where the slopes of the swales are steep enough where they warrant some sort of
armoring. A method of creating permanent grass for grass roots.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if he could explain what it would look like with a lawn and if it was
possible to mow it.
Mr. Herrick stated the mats could be mowed, he explained these mats allowed the grass roots to
penetrate and wrap around and to stay in place.
Board Member Bell asked if he would be proposing the something for the back of the building where the
slope could be really steep.
Mr. Herrick stated that at the back of the building they were considering top soiling and seeding.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 18 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Director of Engineering Walker stated the main difference is that along the side there would be a water
way carrying the volume of water where on the steeper slopes in the cut it will just be the surface water going
across it.
Board Member Thayer stated if the Perry driveway would run around the perimeter of this parcel and
there would be a swale constructed upland of that driveway. So there would be no overland flow onto the
property just proceeding off wherever the embankment is. He said they did not have any concerns at this point
about the affects of the lower lands, but there could be some potential problems in the future.
Board Member Bell referred back to the Environmental Assessment Forms which states that it is 4 feet to
bedrock and then corrected himself to 14 feet. He asked if the plateau would be tied in 14 ft deep.
Mr. Herrick states that on the back side of the building there were going to excavations of 14 ft or plus
deep and the foundations would end up resting on bedrock.
Board Member Bell asked if there was underground load that would be coming out on this bank
Mr. Herrick responded that there were deep holes that were performed out there as a part of
understanding of what the bedrock itself conditions were. His belief is the results of that indicated sulfur dry
down to that depth. In other words, they did not have a large movement of ground water to fill the whole back
up after they dug.
Board Member Bell asked what type of year the wholes were dug.
Mr. Herrick responded that they were dug in February. So they have a plan that addresses some short
term concerns and sultations and some long term continuation of peak flows. They are working out some of the
technical details to stabilize it.
Board Member Hoffmann asked what the height would be along Bundy Road above the parking.
Mr. Herrick responded that parking was about 795, the top of the brume is about 797 or 798, so it varies
from two to three higher than the paved surface.
Board Member Kenerson asked if there would be gutters on the building.
Mr. Herrick answered that there would be gutters on the building and there are down spots that would
dump out onto splash blocks. The interior courtyard the roofs do pitch into the interior so you do have part
piping that carries that out to the common grass areas. In some cases directly into the storm pipes.
Board Member Hoffmann wanted to know that if the building was down in the ground how it could be so
visible as the pictures showed.
Mr. Trowbridge stated that the view was from the north of the Perry house so it is different there than it
is along Bundy Road. He also showed her the different view points on photographs that he had supplied the
Board with.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 19 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Herrick stated utilities, although there is not really an environmental factor involved, could be if there
was not sufficient capacity for both sanitary and water. It is their understanding in working with Director of
Engineering Walker they have both capacity and access to both water and sewer. The one proposal of this
project is to provide that form of access to the Perry house by extending sanitary sewers up the common line
between the two properties in order to make that sanitary lateral extension possible for their home. Fire
protection will be available and they are proposing a fire hydrant on the property that has been coordinated with
the Fire Department. They have reviewed the plan and what they are proposing at this time is to dedicate that
portion to the water main to the town so that the fire hydrant will be Town Property. This way the fire hydrant
will only be used for fire purposes. There is sufficient pressure and volume in the system from the new lines that
are on Bundy Road to provide adequate pressure.
y
Chairperson Wilcox stated that this portion of the meeting was open to the public.
Ann Byrne, 157 Bundy Road, she stated she had a list of questions to ask. One was that the water
pressure was just brought up, the first house on the left, after Perry Lane she is the next house. The water
pressure scares her a bit to hear this going in. She said you can tell in the morning when people are taking a
shower on that road, the water pressure drops fight off, this is her big concern. The issue about the additional
traffic with the visitors is that it is an extremely dangerous intersection and she is baffled that the county does not
see that. It was stated that she was almost hit by a semi -truck when she was trying to turn left onto Bundy Road
because the pass at a high rate of speed on the right. Your car will literally moves every time a car passes you on
the right. The only reason she was saved was that the on coming car saw her pull into the on coming lane to
prevent from being hit by the truck. She feels that there is a major concern that is being over looked with that
road. Making a right -hand turn off of the road, you almost come to a complete stop before you are able to make
the right -hand turn. In the winter time, you will not make the turn if it has not been sanded or salted, there are
many times when the road is not.
Another concern is in the winter when you are coming down Bundy Road, the end is usually salted or
sanded so at least you can stop. To get to that point, which is beyond the Perry driveway, is very hairy. On the
way down people go into the ditch because they are trying to stop before they get to that part which is salted or
sanded. She just envisions the people coming out, and although it was said that there would be less traffic now,
last time she heard that 39 people coming in and out. She would like to know the real number of people coming
in and out it is a main concern for her since she has heard different. Also she leaves her house early in the
morning and could run into these people. If there are people that do not know the road, who are visiting, she
sees another hazard there. Hopefully the people will get to understand the road a little bit in the intersection, but
the visitors are not. Ms. Byrne said with the intersection that there is an accident waiting to happen. It is a
dangerous intersection and something needs to be done if the Sterling House and Sterling Cottage go in. The
last time she was at a Planning Board meeting, she heard something about a separate ownership of these
buildings. She does not quite understand it and would like to know what it means for the future. Also what if it
goes bankrupt, and now there are two buildings that is not going to be maintained sitting right there.
Ms. Byrne stated another concern for her was about the size, in the initial planning it was not going to be
this large, but then the reasoning was that they wanted to fill this up. It sounds like a marketing, they want to
make money, again, she looks at the intent. Is it to help the community out, or to make money, it seems like it
has become pretty big. The zoning is a big concern. If she wanted a busy, city like setting with more housing,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 20 APRIL 21,1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
more health care, and with all these things going in, she would have lived there. It is being taken away by
rezoning the area, and she would have rather seen families in there. She would rather her kids have people to
play with rather than to see this. Ms. Byrne is uncertain of the need, especially when she hears that there are 8
more in the town. It makes her concern with long term if it does not fill up again. Also that it was mentioned
last time about the "escapees ", as they put it, which is they are going to escape, and then where are going to go,
onto the major road with a lot of traffic. Another issue is does it block the view when you are traveling down
Bundy Road of the Falls that she is able to see. She really enjoys the view and it really pacifies her. She does not
live there and get this spectacular view, but she does walk and drive there, and she can not tell from the pictures
if the Ithaca Falls get blocked. In the winter it is absolutely spectacular, and it would be a shame to take that
away like it was on Route 96. Another question was when you are coming down the road and you showed
pictures, what kind of vehicle was that taken from, how high up are you. She has a lower car so she wonders
how low that it. It just seems really sad to her that the Perrys have given so much to the Tgwn and nothing has
been given back to them but increase taxes to make this happen. Especially when they do not want to develop,
but keep their farmland, it almost sounds like they are being forced into this. Is this under direst, because they
still want to stay on their property, and this is the only way they can do that.
Her question to the Zoning Board was what are the big plans. She keeps seeing these little things being
sprouted up all over the place. Thank you.
George Lavris, owner of 1203, 1205, 1207, and 1209 Trumansburg Road, he looks across the highway at
the proposed development. His concern has to do with drainage. The property he owns takes all the water off
Bundy Road, as it exists today. It may or may not take some of the water from this develop. When he bought
the property in 1973, he had a little stream there and was able to hop across it except at the road where the force
from the water came through the pipe that goes underground gouged out the area. Water that comes down the
south side of Bundy Road, gathers at a covert about 250 ft west of the present Perry driveway. It goes under
Bundy Road at that point and picks up the water that comes down the northside of Bundy Road. Then it goes
underground through the McGoy property where it picks up some water off of Route 96, onto Route 96 through
a 30 in covert and there exits between his two properties at 1205 and 1207 Trumansburg Road. His problem
really began about 1984 to 1985 when the Town of Ithaca put in sewers up Bundy Road and up Route 96. At
that time he noticed that erosion was increasing and talked to Larry Prebrony, Town Engineer at that time, Mr.
Prebony looked at the problem and said there definitely was problem. He said he would look into it even though
it was more of a state and county problem because Bundy Road is a county road and Route 96 is a state road. It
was stated that the Town Engineer would look into it to and see that something was done to cut back on the
erosion.
At that time, Mr. Lavris was not terribly concerned, but nothing did take place. In 1986 after a heavy
rainstorm, he found that a large tree, which grew along the creek, was leaning toward his house. Phone calls to
the Town of Ithaca and the State of New York. The state was first to respond and within a day a crew was there
and proceeded to take down 4 trees at that time. In 1988, he heard from a neighbor that Shalebrook
Development was going in. He had never been informed that this development was going in, so it was after the
fact. As soon as he learned about it, he was concerned about his property and the damage increase run -off was
going to create. Mr. Lavris called Shirley Rapensburg and she got him in touch with the Town Engineer at that
time. He was assured that there would be no problem, that was not the case. Between 1988 and 1993, the
erosion increased and he lost more trees.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 21 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
In 1993, he talked to Dan Walker about the problem and Director of Engineering Walker looked at it and
agreed that there was a problem. Director of Engineering Walker's immediate thought was that a covert through
the sensitive area between the two houses could be put in. In order to do so, a large Walnut Tree would have to
be cut down. Director of Engineering Walker asked Eric Whitney to draw plans for this area, Mr. Whitney came
back to Mr. Lavris in 1994 with copies of plans and letters Mr. Whitney had sent to the DOT and the county
requesting assistance in taking care of the problem. Nothing was done at that point, but on the weekend of
August 20 and 21 in 1994 there was a heavy rainstorm. On Monday morning, Mr. Lavris went out and as he
passed the area where the sewer line used to run under the creek, the main sewer line that takes all the waste
from the hospital, nursing home, from all the houses up Route 96 and Bundy Road, he discovered the sewer line
was broken. He was unaware of how long it had been broken.
Thousands and thousands of gallons of raw sewage went down his creek into the lake. The Town of
d
Ithaca came out and it took them from 7:30 a.m. until noon to get it capped off. Again in 1996, it looked like
what they did at that time was not going to hold, it lushing was out. Another came back and they shored up
what they had done initially. Last March, Director of Engineering Walker and Gorton Rhymes from the state
came out and looked at the problem and both agreed something had to be done and done soon. It was assured
that by last summer work would begin on the problem, to date nothing has been done. He talked to Director of
Engineering Walker and was told water from this project will not affect his property. That was the something he
was told about the Shalebrook Development and he has been adversely affected by the run -off If it does not
affect the project, he is concerned about what is going to happen when the remaining property between this
project and Shalebrook is developed. It seems to Mr. Lavris something should be done now to take the water
off of Bundy Road and divert it into Leon's plan which can very easily handle the water and not wait to this
project is completed. To him, something should be done now, and not wait until it is too late. If the Town of
Ithaca does not have the resources to take care of a problem like this, that more projects should not be taken on
which could create more problems. Thank You.
Chairperson Wilcox thanked the public that spoke. He brought it back to the board.
Board Member Hoffmann thought it was an incredible suggestion that was just heard about the drainage.
Could anything more be told about the drainage.
Director of Engineering Walker stated as far as this particular project the concern about putting any more
water into that water course has been addressed. That was one of the first things he told T and G Miller, not to
divert any more water into that water course. As far as solving the existing erosion most of the water has been
directed by the work of the state and the county. It is not really anything the Town of Ithaca has done. There
might be some additional flow coming from the Shalebrook that does drain into that course and there has been
some work on the road ditch up Bundy Road by the county which may have directed more water down into that
area. It is something he as been trying to work with. The county and state addressed him, and with the limited
resources of the town, it would cost $20,000 or $30,000. Director of Engineering Walker will be talking with
the State Engineer again to try and get something done. He would like to be able to solve it, but he does not
have the resources from the Town of Ithaca to do something at this point.
Mr. Lavris stated that was exactly his point. If the Town of Ithaca does not have the resources to take
care of the problems that exist, why take on new projects that might make the old problems worse and create
new problems as well. He walked Bundy Road that morning and walked the State Highway, he walked Bundy
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 22 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Road to Shalebrook and slightly beyond. First of all he looked at his creek and he saw a certain volume of water
coming through that pipe out into the creek. This is private property, there is not easement, state, town, or
county to put water onto that property. Mr. Lavris first looked at the water coming through the pipe, he then
walked up Bundy Road and as he got passed Shalebrook there was a small quantity of water, at Shalebrook a
much larger quantity. As he went down the road toward Perry driveway, the water increased from the drainage
tile that is in the field. There is some significant water in that field. Several times during the past few years that
water has overflowed Bundy Road and has gone over onto properties across the street. The point Mr. Lavris
started to make was he estimated this morning that roughly 15% of the water coming through his pipe into his
creek, comes from above Shalebrook, 50% of the water comes from Shalebrook, may be another 15% from
Shalebrook down to the Perry driveway where it goes onto the road, 10% of the water is coming down the state
highway. What he saw that morning, a significant portion is coming from Shalebrook. The second greatest is
coming from the fields between Shalebrook and the covert.
One thing he was wondering about was the swale that was mentioned above where the cut off into the
property. Mr. Lavris wanted to know where that water would go.
Mr. Herrick answered by showing
rebuilding for the Perrys will have a swale
They are purposely not running it into the
driveway covert back from the intersection c
in the pattern it has always been. The water
the drainage on diagrams. He explained the driveway they were
along the upper side which is consistent with what they have now.
covert that Mr. Lavris is referring to. They are putting in another
>f Bundy Road, it takes water from a portion of the field and keeps it
will stay in the lower portion of the Bundy Road ditch.
Mr. Lavris explained that if nothing is done he will lose a few more trees about every year.
Director of Engineering Walker asked what the difference between the two houses which the creek ran
between.
Mr. Lavris stated there was more than 50 ft. In 1986, it was close to going in the house. The state came
in and stopped. As he said before, it is private property and there was no easement. He felt reassured by hearing
Director of Engineering Walker and Peter Trowbridge talk about where the water was going to go. His point
why not divert some of the water that is coming down Bundy Road so that the rest of the area can be developed
in the future without having problems, where is that water going to go. The ditch that goes alone the state
highway is not sufficient to take much more water.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if he was talking about the shoulder on the south side of Bundy Road
and the west side of Route 96.
Director of Engineering Walker stated there was a pulmonary subdivision approval for the cross road and
final plans have not been developed. There are provisions to divert the water to Williamsbrook in the phases for
that site.
Mr. Lavris asked when that was, 15 years down the road. If the present rate of erosion continues, in 10
years, he may not have a house. His point is to take care of this problem before they start making it worse. At
least have a plan.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 23 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Mr. Herrick asked to make one more point about the drainage. They have looked at bringing the
drainage ( pointing to a corner on the diagram) as close to a pipe system at they can and hopefully it goes into
the brook.
Board Member Bell stated it would be logical to try to divert some of the water that is going through this
covert onto Bundy Road into the top of Route 96. He wants to know that is not being proposed.
Director of Engineering Walker stated the reason the water was diverted away from Route 96 was that it
was causing problems on Route 96 at the time the covert was installed by the county and the state in the late
70's. He is sure the county was having problems with their ditch as it got closer to the state route, they
eliminated part of their problem by eliminating a lot of the water. At the beginning it was fairly easy to say O.K.
there is a catch base here, the state got permission to dump the water into that covert and that was as far as they
looked. They are trying to now look at the bigger pictures, as they should have before.
Mr. Herrick stated in answering Mr. Lavris's question, the project has not looked at mitigating that
portion of the watershed that is not actively involved.
Board Member Bell asked Director of Engineering Walker what he thought they should do.
Attorney Barney asked if they were going to provide the money. As far as of the impacts of this
projects, what is being reviewed, the developers are responsible for controlling the discharge to not increase from
current conditions.
Board Member Bell the property is a large subdivision, so then the question then becomes is it reasonable
to say the property that is creating part of the problem might be asked to respond with some help.
Attorney Barney stated it was not dealing with the environmental facts of this particular sight. He asked
David Herrick could some engineering be done in conjunction with this project that would at least divert part of
that water and bring it around in some fashion that would get it to the Williams Glenn Creek.
Director of Engineering Walker stated the granted the subdivision of the entire council does include
several other eliminates, including the Town Park dedication, and the road reservation of Riley Drive. He has
not done any final engineering, but just at looking at the preliminaries the root of Riley Drive would serve the
falls on an appropriate grade to serve as a diversion to take water to Williams Glenn from portions of Bundy
Road and portions of west of the sight. If they were to develop a park site, there might be some things they
might have to do, anyhow, that might include this.
Board Member Bell asked if it was possible given all the earth moving that is going on at the site that
some measure be taken to reduce the flow.
Director of Engineering Walker stated he believed their plan was taking as much as possible into account
without significant disturbing the remainder of the agricultural land on the site. If they wanted to put a strip
down the middle of the farmland that is what it would take to do that. Basically they would be building the Riley
Drive road base to put the diversion across.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 24 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Bell asked if it could be done with a swale or at some point drainage.
Director of Engineering Walker responded yes, but you would be talking about a swale that is 30 ft wide
and 2 to 3 ft deep. Basically the Riley Drive road right a way that shows on that plan would be roughed out.
Mr. Trowbridge stated you would have to divert water (pointing to diagram), pull water off of Bundy
Road, along Riley.
Director of Engineering Walker said that is really the master plan of the water maintenance plan would be
for the remainder of that sight.
Mr. Herrick stated another thing that might be appropriate for the balance of the parcel is the regulations
will not become any less restricted than they are now, they might become more restricted in terms of how you
have to mitigate increase run -off from development projects. So depending on the size of the next application
that comes to you, they are going to held to the same sort of tenuation. They are considering 1 acre detention
and erosion protection and control for one acre sights. Right now it is limited to 5 acres of disturbance, which is
why they are impacted by that requirement. This will have the similar sort of opportunities to mitigate those
development modifications or changes in the hydrology when they come forward.
Director of Engineering Walker states the question right now is there something that can be done as part
of this project that is not tremendously costly, but can be done in a way that will partially eliminate, if not
completely eliminate Mr. Levris's problem. Looking at this particular situation there is a golden opportunity to
do a little diversion work at the western of the project.
Attorney Barney states in order to be affective to do what they really want to do they are talking about
getting several hundred ft to may 5 hundred ft away from the site.
Chairperson Wilcox states that there are two issues; the flow across the property and this particular
subdivision. The state and the county to look at Mr. Lavris's property to see why they did not keep to their
commitment before. Is there an opportunity with this proposal to possibly mitigate the problem to some degree
while they beat on the state or the county to put in a permanent solution. He is not asking for a solution for the
problem tonight. There is some small amount of time. In the room there is a lot of expertise and try to see what
they can do at a reasonable expense.
Director of Engineering Walker stated the problem is they could very easily diverts the flow from Bundy
Road into the drainage system, but you would not be able to store enough water to not create a bigger problem
on the state highway and a bigger problem for these people. The slopes of their site are limiting what they can
do for storm water retention on the site. Additional water can not be brought into that site. They are going to
be right on the edge of being able to store enough water and that is why they are storing it behind the building,
which he normally does not recommend. They are squeezing out square inches and gallons of storage wherever
they can to make this site not create more discharge. It is not like there is an extra 50 ft of storage to put water
in.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 25 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED "APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann remembers hearing about a third problem from Mr. Lavris. That was a
problem with the sewer. The sewer broke at one point recently, it was repaired, her question is this sewer going
out there. She wanted to know if it was going to break more, are they going to hook up this development to a
sewer which is going to break.
Director of Engineering Walker stated this project was going to be connected in Trumansburg Road
down stream to the problem area Mr. Lavris was talking about. If that sewer opens up and they get all the flow
from the stream into the sewer it overloads the whole sewer system. He believes they reinforced that sewer
adequately, they are monitoring the sewer, he does not think it has washed out again. It was reinforced with
gavials. He is comfortable that they can protect the sewer. The section of the sewer line from the hospital is
very old and they have been talking about replacing it for a number of years. The property behind the Odd
Fellow's property, was going to be the solution to that sewer problem because they were going to run a new
trunk sewer though that project as part of that project to divert flow away from the old sewer. The amount of
sewage that would generate was very small amount and the capacity of the pipe is tremendous from this point
down because it picks up a lot of slope.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if anyone else had any questions on a specific drainage issue. He stated he
wanted to address some of the issues Ann Byrne brought up. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there was a water
pressure problem on Perry Lane.
Board Member Thayer stated he lived at 7 Perry Lane and did not have a lot of water pressure, but there
was not a problem.
Elsie Dentes, 11 Perry Lane, stated she lived two house above Board Member Thayer, and the higher you
get, the less water pressure their is. Only a trickle of water comes out of the upstairs shower.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that Perry Lane was at the edge of the water service area. It is
high in the elevation, water is provided up to the last house on the right on Bundy Road. That person has to
have a booster pump in order to maintain adequate pressure which is because it is at the level of the tank. From
Perry Lane down to the development site, there is 120 ft grade change, Frank LaBory, who lives about the same
elevation of these projects, has a significant pressure problem because he can blow his pipes out easy. This is
caused by spikes of up to 150, 160 lbs of pressure surges because he is down lower.
Board Member Thayer asked if the development would affect the water pressure.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that for a fire it would, but for domestic use: it should not.
Board Member Hoffmann asked how it would affect it if there was a fire.
Director of Engineering Walker answered a lot of water would be pumped in order to put the fire out.
Board Member Hoffmann asked what would happen then.
Director of Engineering Walker replied that if they draw a fire flow from the hydrant at that point, some
people on Perry Lane may not water on their second floor.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 26 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Jim Showaker, 9 Perry Lane, stated their is a fire hydrant at the end of the caldisac and if there is a fire
below it, and it drains the water out of the system, there is no fire protection them.
Mr. Herrick stated the Fire Department was aware of it and he believes the hydrant has a red cap on it.
That means it has less than desirable ISO flows. The 12 in water main that goes across the Perry Farm, provides
a large volume of water at a relatively low pressure. The Fire Department is aware of the situation on Perry
Lane, if they were fight a fire at 11 or 9 Perry Lane, they would not be connected to the hydrant at the end of the
caldisac, it would be connected to the hydrant closer to Bundy Road. The source of the information on the fire
flows and the pressures came from Volt Point, they came from actual fire flows they conducted out there in the
field over several number of years. It is information that is field proven, and again when you think of 120 ft
vertical difference, it amounts to over 50 lbs pressure. That is why you have substantially higher pressures at this
project site than you do up gradient. The size pipes being run into the facility are 8 in and they are more than
adequately sized to minimize friction loss in the system if the sprinklers have to operate. As Director of
Engineering Walker stated if they are fighting a fire they probably going to run it through a pump. Especially if
they are running anywhere farther up Bundy Road, so they are going augment their pressure for fire fighting
needs with their pumper vehicle.
Chairperson Wilcox stated he quickly wanted to move through some of the questions. Traffic was
mentioned, what is the total trips in a 24 hour period on that section of the road is roughly 15,000. He asked
how many this particular project will add.
Mr. Herrick responded that during the day shift would add 20 to 25 persons and the difference in
numbers that Ms. Byrne addressed is that the total employee staffing is 36 to 39. That is also for 3 shifts. In the
day shift there is 20 to 25, and you have the balance in the other 2 shifts of the day.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if it was the number of vehicle trips.
Mr. Herrick said they were talking total number of employees which would translate into vehicle trips if
everybody did drive to the site.
Chairperson Wilcox stated escapees was mentioned and addressed at the last meeting. He then asked
Peter Trowbridge if he had addressed the view of the Ithaca Falls.
Mr. Trowbridge stated that the Ithaca Falls were addressed. They did take photographs up and down
the highway. One place that views are obstructed is from the Mc Gory's house. Immediately south and east
looking out of the Mc Gory house has the biggest obstructed view. They did not project all of them because
there were many view perspectives. As you move up the hill, within 2 or 3 houses you start to look above the
roof lines of the buildings.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mike Villa to address the need of the facility and what the state may or may
not do in regard to the need. He wanted to know if the state was still involved in deciding if there is a need for
the facility in the proposed area.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 27 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
W. Villa responded they needed to receive a letter of need from the DSS. This is really what he handed
out to the Board earlier. That is where the Alzheimer facility, also the Alzheimer Association provided a letter of
need. The Alzheimer Association conducts their own survey of need outside of their survey. They have done
extensive market study of the area, taking into consideration population. It is a private paid facility, so the need
determination is based on income levels as well as the age of the people who may enter the facility. The
youngest are in their low 60's in some of their facilities. When they do their need determination, they go from
age 75 and up. They do not go into the 60's, so there is probably a significant more, but they like to take a
conservative approach to this as far as the need. In addressing Ms. Byrne's concern, as far as will the company
be present 5,10,15 years from now and having 2 owners, it is really the same owner just a different entity. ALS
is present in 25 states and have over 250 facilities. They have been operating as an Assisted Living Operator
since 1981, and have not had a facility go under as far as nonuse or lack thereof. It is felt that when they come
into an area there is a need for that, and if there is not a need they are not going to put money into construction
of facilities in order to help and service the community.
Board Member Hoffmann stated another problem Ms. Byrne brought up was turning in and out of that
lane. She noticed there were some letters the Board received, the letter from the county with some concern
about the traffic. It was stated that one aspect that was incomplete in the application was the analysis of turning
safety and level of service, both current and anticipated at the intersection of Bundy Road and Route 96.
Chairperson Wilcox asked why the county said that and wondered if they did not receive the traffic
analysis study or is it that they looked at the traffic analysis study and decided it was not properly addressed.
Mr. Villa stated he believed that when the material was sent to the county they did not have this traffic
supplement.
Board Member Hoffmann stated what Ms. Byrne described was quite scary especially when wanting to
turn left onto Bundy Road and having large cars or trucks passing on the right, the shoulder.
Mr. Showaker stated that in his car which is much lower that they were talking about, you can not see
over the crown of the hill going north until you are right at the intersection. Then if you can pull over and
straddle the double yellow line you can make room for the trucks to go by. He stated it was very simple.
Board Member Hoffmann said she remembered Board Member Ainslie, who lives in that area, has talked
about the difficulty of seeing there too as you come up the hill. Another thing Ms. Byrne mentioned was that this
project is appropriate at that location because there are other similar uses. In some ways, may be it makes sense
for a facility like this to be fairly close to the hospital, for instance. One must not forget, though, that there is
also agriculture there, a residential area. So which one would take precedence. The argument could go many
different ways. It is a very hard decision to make deciding which is most important.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that as far as agriculture in this area, it was discussed during the
development of the Comprehensive Plan. The Perry Farm and the adjoining parcel, are still very much in
agricultural use, have been designated for development as future residential land primarily for the availability of
public utilities. Secondarily, from the stand point of agriculture, they are no longer in a very good location to be
used for agricultural purposes. There are too many homes to close to the fields, and to much potential for
conflicts between residential use and agricultural use.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 28 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED "APPROVED "APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated she agreed with Assistant Town Planner Frantz and that it was also
close to a major road. The fact remains that there is agriculture up and down Route 96 there, and further north
there is more with good agricultural soil there. The more important thing though, is there is residential use there
also.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz wanted to address the issue of the loss of agricultural land on this
particular property. The agricultural land for the north above Hayts Road, of course, the town is taking steps to
protect that. The agricultural land west of Perry Lane and Hopkins Road, the Park Recreation and Open Space
Plan is calling for that to be protected from development. The Perry Farm, unfortunately, is a loss as far as
agriculture goes.
Director of Engineering Walker stated another thing about the zoning ordinance, is that R15 district does
not allow nursing homes, or convalescent homes, where as the R30 district does. He supposes that part of the
rational for that is R30 has somewhat larger lot sizes, but other than that there is really no good rational why R15
did not include nursing homes.
Board Member Kenerson wanted to know how many houses could be built there under the R15
designation if this project did not go through. It was found in paperwork that there could be 23 residential lots
and there could be 2 houses on each lot. His point was that this project would have less impact on that area than
30 houses would. The inevitable is that it is going to be built period and this seems like the lesser than any of the
other evils.
Chairperson Wilcox stated they still had an unresolved issue of the intersection and the turning at the
intersection, specifically going north and turning north. The sight distances look pretty good from pictures, but
there are still some issues there. It is an issue that the Board needs to look into and the applicants look into.
What they do know, though, given the number of vehicle trips on that road, and given the number of vehicle that
this proposal will add, it will not make the problem worse with an additional 50 to 75 trips a day considering
normal traffic is 15,000 in a 24 hour period.
Board Member Kenerson stated the point was that the problem existed.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that this will not make the problem worse, but the problem still needs to be
looked into.
Mr. Herrick responded that may be we should talk about having a separate driveway directly onto Route
96.
Mr. Trowbridge in response stated that part of the problem may be that the speed limit is posted at 45
MPH, and that may actually be too high. 30 MPH to the city line and then jump up to 45 MPH.
Chairperson Wilcox stated clearly one of the issues is as the development starts to move out, the speed
limit should move out with it. Other SEQR issues, this is an ACT district and they do have an ACT statement to
go with it. Noise during construction has been pointed out, but the impact is suppose to be small to moderate
and end once construction stops. On his list of SEQR issues, is that they covered all of the issues.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 29 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED "APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated there was one additional thing in the letter from the county, that was the
county looked at Bob Wesley's list of evasive plans, the county found 3 species listed in these plans that are
listed as invasive, and that they do not recommend the use. They are Norway Spruce, Common Periwinkle, and
Crabapple species. It is only the Siberia Crabapple that is listed as invasive.
Carl Sgreccn, 1130 Trumansburg Road, stated what they might want to consider a solid double line for
the road, all the way from the city line to at least the hospital, if not all the to De Bois Road. In addition to the
problems that have been mentioned, people can also pass in that distance. Just the matter of striping could help
the eliminate the problem.
Chairperson Wilcox stated they had to mention the letter from David B. Cook. He does not think he will
mention anything else about the letter from Mr. Cook. He mentioned the ACT statement, ;mentioned the DSS
letter, and the Office of the Aging.
Board Member Bell had a couple of questions on the EAF, or if they were done with the EAF. On page
3 on the Environmental Assessment Program, section B is called Project Description, and at 1H is the various
description of sizes and stuff. The question H is "if residential number and type of units" and that is not filled
out, and it seems like even though it is not a normal family type housing unit, it should at least have some
numbers in there.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the form was meant to cover many cases, and did not feel anyone would
object that under multifamily, add in the numbers.
Attorney Barney stated that his impression was to leave it the way it was, and not to classify it as
residential, but rely on description that was provided elsewhere. Every blank does not need to be filled in as long
as it is described.
Board Member Hoffmann stated may be they could just say see attached description.
Attorney Barney said they would mainly be referring to the descriptions provided in the report which is
called the Design Review Application for Preliminary Site Plan Review April 21, 1998.
Board Member Bell asked on the same page, question 4, how many acres of vegetation will be removed.
The applicant has completed the acres as 0. The word vegetation was misinterpreted. It is not 0, it does include
grass ect.
Mr. Villa stated it is addressed that they were not taking anything off of the site. But if you look at A2
underneath Apartsmenary Presently and After Completion. Agricultural 8.06 acres presently, if you go down
further under Roads, Buildings, and Others Unvegetative, landscape is 5.98 after completion, roads, buildings is
2.26. It kind of differentiates what they are going to be doing with the property. He stated they are not
removing from the site, 2.26 acres will be disturbed with a building and parking.
It was decided this was the answer to page 1 part A2.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 30 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Bell stated on page 4, question 21 says "with project result with the increase in energy"
the applicant said yes, the type of use the applicant said electric. He wanted to know if the heating of the
building would be electric.
Mr. Villa responded that it would be gas.
Board Member Bell asked if they could put in and gas, and it was decided they could.
Board Member Hoffmann stated there was something on page 3 that had to deal with what they were
talking about. D2 asked "how much natural material that is rock, earth, ect. will be removed from the sight" and
it said no.
Mr. Villa stated that they were moving around not removing.
Board Member Hoffmann stated on page 2, point 14 there is a question "does the present site offer or
includes scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community" and they mentioned yes, Cayuga Lake,
and the hill to the east is visible from the sight. From this site itself it is also visible from both directions and
wanted both directions added in. Another question was on page 4, point 18 asks "when the project use
herbicides or pesticides" and it is marked no. She wanted to know if that was right.
Mr. Villa said they did not plan on using either, on the grassy areas it will be sprayed, as far as grass seed.
Mr. Trowbridge stated there was no reason to use fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides on the lawn. The
applicant does not plan on using any. He also know it is good practice not to, so they choose not to.
Board stated they were shocked to see the answer.
Board Member Hoffmann stated on page 9, of part 2 under Impact on Aesthetic Resources, she wished
to mark the second and third part. She had question about the continued farming, but she heard that night the
Perrys were planning to do so as long as they were able to do some sort of farming.
Board Member Thayer stated that because he lived in the area, is was very emotionally involved in the
project. He did not want to let his opinion go through as a vote. With the help of Edie Showaker, he pulled the
neighborhood and wishes they were able to see the pictures. Board Member Thayer stated that he is a little
concerned that it is blocking a lot of the view, more that he thought it would. He thought it would be level with
the Candlewick Building, but it is not. The pulling of the neighborhood was positive. Everyone except the one
letter that was received and couple up Bundy Road, agreed that this project was the lesser of all evils. He stated
he was prepared that to vote for the project, but now he is unsure of the view problem and the potential trees
that could grow there.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the meeting was just a SEQR Determination, site plan and subdivision
will come up later.
Ms. Dentes stated she had a couple of concerns. One she would like to put in a request, from those of
them living up above, that only shorter species be planter, specifically trees. She stated she was at the meeting
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 31 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
two weeks ago and the developers were talking about the materials that were going into the buildings. They said
brick and was wondering what the second material for the exterior of the was going to be.
Chairperson Wilcox stated it was not being discussed that night, but would be discussed when they came
back with the site plan.
Ms. Dentes stated her third concern was she heard was they were going to use aluminum siding. She
stated when the houses on Perry Lane were built, they were restricted from using aluminum siding. Ms. Dentes
stated in order to keep in quality with the neighborhood, she would like to see the same restrictions.
Board Member Hoffmann said that when it came to plant species and trees to be used, she feels very
strongly not to obstruct views by structures as well as planting inappropriate trees.
today.
A
Ms. Dentes stated that she was concerned with the height of the trees 40 years from now, as well as
Chairperson Wilcox stated the pressure was on one of the best in town to pick the right plant species, to
both shield the buildings from the road and residence and at the same time not block the view.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she did have concerns about a number of things, she feels that what they
have talked about, drainage, traffic, view droppage, can be dealt with so that they do not have to be serious.
Attorney Barney stated to determine significance is what is being dealt with. In section 647 -7 states you
must find that "the lead agency must determine if the action may include the potential for at least one significant
adverse environmental impact, alternatively, to determine that and an EIS will not be required for an action, the
lead agency, must determine either that there will be either no adverse environmental impacts or the identified
adverse environmental impacts will not be significant."
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the discussion of Consideration of Determination of Significance of
Environmental Impact at 10:45 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of additional athletic
W
C111M
Possible new facilities, as described in the "Precinct 9 Plannin Study Preliminary Report," October
1997, include two soccer fields, one multipurpose field, a changing facility, six indoor squash courts, an
outdoor horse show ring at the Equestrian Center, and the addition of up to 106 new parking spaces in
front of the Equestrian Center.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 10 :50 p.m., and read aloud from the
Agenda.
Eric Dicke, Director of Facility Planning at Cornell, he stated he had a team with him to answer
questions. Mr. Dicke presented diagrams to the Board. As a refresher, he stated they were shifting from west
hill over to east hill. The Precinct 9, has to do with the fact that Cornell has artificially created zones within the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 32 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED
campus to help with planning. He described the area to the Board and showed the area on diagrams as he named
the streets which framed the area. The area they are talking about the parcel of land which includes the Swine
Farm, Polo Arena and Indoor Facility, the Reis Tennis Center, and the addition of the Women's Softball Field.
Mr. Dicke presented a Site Analysis Diagram, which showed the physical facility that are present. As it was
discussed before, there are views out across, there are view coming in, and there are many types of views. Mr.
Dicke provided the Board with photographs of the view. View One is looking north from Honness Lane, View
Two is looking down behind the hedges on Honness Lane, View Three which shows the screening of the parking
and that the topography of the land dips down. View Four looks directly up on the Recreation Trail, and it is
somewhat screened. View Five is looking north from the other side of the hedge, showing there is partial view
blocking, and View Six is from the Recreation Trail a little bit further along. In some cases, there is long
distance, it is relatively tight views.
Mr. Dicke stated that what they were looking at installing were three practice fields. "He emphasized that
the fields were going to be used for practice, not competition. If there are questions about usage, they will
address them. Another component is an addition on the backside of the Tennis Center of some indoor Squash
Courts, five to six courts. There would be a small changing facility and emergency care facility. The idea of
expanding the paddocks, so that they could have more horse space. They are also proposing to add more
parking space that would address some of the concerns people have about parking. What is seen in terms of
traffic and circulation, is the idea that the athletes would be coming over primarily scheduled practice during the
two seasons, fall and spring. From their point of view, there would be very little additional traffic because the
students would come from the changing area. The idea is the athletes could come over in a van, and the area can
also be served by bus. This area allows a circulation route which enables a bus to go in and through, and come
out. There is also a recreation way that runs back over to the campus, so there would be a pedestrian pathway.
They would like to plant a buffer strip (pointed to an area on the diagram), it is dimensioned as a hundred ft
wide. The intention is the fields would be lighted for afternoon practice.
The letter that was received the night before, containing comments. It suggested relocating the parking
further down into the center of the site. They feel strongly that one of the things that they are trying to do is to
not introduce cars into the middle of the facility. The facilities are trying to be maintained as pedestrian friendly.
It would be preferred to put the transportation issue more at the perimeter.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if this was the same letter the Board had.
Mr. Dicke stated one of the things that would have to be addressed very carefully is site draining. They
are not anticipating a huge degree of hard surfaces, it is aware that there will be some cut and fill, and they are
not at the point of knowing. This is seen as a limited development area, and there would not be dorms or
residence present there.
Chairperson Wilcox asked what the line was on the enlarged sketch.
Maureen Gilbert stated the line would be metal stops and the taller growth begins. Growth is meant as
shrubs and trees.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the area used to be fields and is being used as research. He asked about
another line.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 33 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Maureen Gilbert showed him the new line and where the natural line.
Fred Noteboom, Highway Park Superintendent of the Town of Ithaca, stated they received the plans a
day or two ago. The plans were looked at closely and drafted their comments on the drainage. There is a lot of
concern with the drainage along the walkway. In the past, the trail has overflowed and the water impacting
homestead, residential and city residential area. From their point of view, they would be looking specifically at
that a great deal. He asked if this would be the appropriate time to pursue a linking trail from the campus into
town (the area was shown on an enlarged sketch). From the Pine Tree Road area over to the campus there is not
sufficient pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
Chairperson Wilcox stated he did not like the fields where they were (pointing to the fields on the
diagram). He thinks they are getting too close to the residence on Honness Lane. Assistant Town Planner
Frantz, in his prepared materials, suggested that the more that could be put behind the existing buildings, the
farther they are away from the residential areas. He does not like the light tower just to the side of the bumper
(pointed to which side), there is noise going on from students and athletes. Anything that can be done to move
the fields away from the area would be a good thing.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that there were not just residence on Honness Lane, a residential area
was also present in the area she pointed to on the diagram. She pointed out a problem about having a lighted
field in this area, the lights can be seen from far away.
that.
Mr. Dicke stated that the lights would only be 30 to 35 ft candle lights, the light poles would be half of
Ms. Gilbert stated that there would be a time limit, the lights would only be used in. the spring and fall for
limited hours.
Board Member Hoffmann asked what the hours and days were the lights would be on.
Charles Moore stated the lights would be shut off at 10:00 p.m.
Board Member Hoffmann asked what time of year the practice would be starting and finishing.
Mr. Moore responded they would need the lights only when it became dark, so in the fall, September to
November, it would be from approximately from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. They are unsure if they will need them
at all in the spring. The worse possible case is 4:00 to 10:00 p.m., and absolutely under no condition the lights
would be on after 10:00 p.m. for five months of the year.
Chairperson Wilcox stated when the Cornell Women's Softball Field came before the Board, one of the
advantages they had was that they did not need lights. It was an important factor to the Board that there would
not be lights going in there. As important as that was, the proposal to put lights, even if the poles were only 75 ft
high, here is an issue.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 34 APRIL 211 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann stated when there is a 75 ft pole close to a residence, it does not matter if it is
shaded. The light will spread anyway. She said it does help but it is not as it would be without the lights.
Board Member Thayer asked if other location had been investigated. The location of the fields seem to
be far away from the Teagle Hall area.
Mr. Dicke stated other areas had been looked at. There
there are a number of fields in the newer campus, but that is recd
where the intercollegiate sports are. One of the things they are
There would be a center campus location for the intercollegiate
does make sense.
are the Jest fields next to a residential area, and
ration, intramural. It is a different thing. This is
trying to do is condense where the centers are.
sports, this is intercollegiate tennis, polo, so it
Board Member Hoffmann stated it does make sense to have practice fields, that are used more often,
located closer to where the students live than where they are all day.
Mr. Dicke stated that the practices were scheduled practices which is the differentiation between the
recreation of the north campus. He agreed with Board Member Hoffmann there. Students like to come out of
the dorms and want to play Ultimate Frisbee, or have an informal pick up game. The 3 fields up north are
intensely scheduled. This is specifically scheduled intercollegiate practices.
Ms. Gilbert stated that most teams meet at Teagle and in most cases jog over to the field. It would be a
combination having the van carry the equipment over, but the students would be walking, jogging as part of their
program to get to the site.
Mr. Dicke Crew change at Teagle, and jog down to inlet, row and run back up. It is part of their
workout.
Board Member Hoffmann asked from Teagle to this site where the students would be jogging.
Mr. Dicke responded that they would take the trail along Maple Wood, cross down by the Humphrey's
Service Building, and across by the bridge by 366.
Mr. Moore stated that it was exactly 1 mile, so it was not a big part of their workout. He wanted to
point out that they have 7 varsity programs already there. These would be supporting other varsity programs.
They also have been working with the lighting engineers, and have had significant developments in the shading
of lights. What they have learned is if the lights are taken up 75 ft, there is much less glare.
Chairperson Wilcox stated glare was not the only thing. There is glare, proximity to the residential area,
the visual aspects of the poles in the air, these are all parts that must be considered.
Board Member Bell asked about the impact of the vegetative 160 ft strip on the view from Snyder Hill
Road. They have talked a lot about views over the years, and one of the best views remaining to the public, is
the view on Pine Tree Road, south of the Swine Barn. Now, he is concerned that all of a sudden that this
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 35 APRIL 219 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
vegetative buffer, which is suppose to be an environmental positive, to shield certain views from certain people,
is not going to block other views. He wanted to know if it would or would not.
Mr. Dicke commented that he would need to double check the contours. He stated it would reduce some
of the angle of the view. The point he is making is that they are 1 ft contours, and when you get down there
(pointing at the diagram) you are 25 ft below the road. They have not gotten into the level of detail of what
species they would be planting.
Board Member Bell asked if they were thinking about planting trees.
Ms. Gilbert asked if he was talking about the vegetative buffer, and there was talk of burning it slightly to
bring it up a little bit. They are not using trees because they do not really buffer much of anything. It would be
low growing brush, very similar to the native species. 4
Board Member Bell stated they were going to increase the height
Ms. Gilbert stated that was the idea of the birm area.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated planting the buffer into plants that would be 20 ft or lower, and
would not block any views. He sent the original photograph around for the Board to review. To the left of the
stop sign, whose top is almost level with the bottom of the Ithaca College Towers, so that is indicative of how
much view could potentially be blocked. He stated the picture was the intersection of Snyder Hill Road and Pine
Tree looking west. The picture was taken about 70 ft east of the stop sign of the intersection.
Board Member Bell stated there was a very narrow range of where the view is, it is pretty much at the
intersection of Snyder Hill. He does not want the view further eliminated.
Chairperson Wilcox stated they were not trying to plan the whole project that night, they were just
supplying feedback.
Board Member Hoffmann stated it was when you arrived at the stop sign, after coming down the road,
that you able to really stop and enjoy the view. She is afraid that the rest of the view will be blocked by the
project. Board Member Hoffmann was explaining the different views that were present in the area by showing
them on the diagram.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz passed around a photograph of the vegetation that was present in the
northwestern of the property. It is primarily Hawthorne, Honeysuckle, and other shrub and brush vegetation.
All really less than 20 ft in height. He does not think it is just a matter of the lights and when they are being on,
but it is the very idea of having 65 to 75 ft high light poles in this area that the Planning Board needs to look at
very carefully. There are 3 sites the University has lighting, one is Schoellkoph, Alumni Field Complex, Tobin
Field Complex, the lights in those 3 areas, tend not to cause any problems. Primarily because are beyond the
crest of East Hill. Lights in this location, are right at the edge of that crest of East Hill. They are talking about 9
poles block that view at the intersection of Snyder Hill Road, not blocking, but interfering. This site is very
visible from the South Hill Recreation Way, the park site, and Troy Road Park site. The Reis Tennis Center and
the Equitation Center fact are very prominent landmarks on the horizon. These lights are going to be very
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 36 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
visible, even off. That is why he recommending the Board and Cornell seriously think about shifting the lights as
far north on the site as possible. The reason being is you are pushing them back away from the edge of the hill
side and their will be more vegetative buffer to possibly screen them more.
Board Member Hoffmann stated one only would not be seeing the light poles and the light sources from
other hills around, but one is likely to see a lit rectangular area from the hills.
Board Member Bell wanted to know what the elevation difference from Pine Tree at the intersection of
Snyder Hill (showed the area on the enlargement)
Tree Road itself.
The poles would be about 30 ft above the elevation of Pine
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the fixtures on the poles would stick out more than the poles.
Board Member Hoffmann asked about the parking extension area. It was indicated there would be an
elevation of 943 ft. She wanted to know the elevation of the existing parking area.
Mr. Dicke stated the intent would slightly be cut into the hill side, but they were not at that stage yet.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she just wanted to find out if the parking area was going to be cut into
the ground. Board Member Hoffmann wanted to propose that the Board walked the area.
Chairperson Wilcox stated the Board would formally arrange a time to walk the site.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated as far as parking and pedestrian access, it was talked about
Cornell's desire not to have traffic in the center of facilities on campus. The concern far as having safe all
weather pedestrian access from that parking lot into the site has not really been addressed. As the plan is drawn
is drawn out, it is seen everyone walking through the horse trailer parking area.
Mr. Dicke stated the intent was to have a path, and still needs to be taken a look at.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated as part of the preliminary submission, getting all weather walk way,
and getting pedestrians away from that horse trail unloading area. He thinks it might have to be done just to
meet Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a design issue that can be addressed.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the new gravel roadway by the tennis courts was permanent.
Ms. Gilbert stated it was not permanent, it was there for the trucks to go back and forth for construction
on the Softball Field.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated he and Mr. Moore learned a lot last summer in the reveal of the
lights for the soccer field, the lights are still not there, the Schoellkoph lights have decreased tremendously since
last summer.
Mr. Moore does not know why it was not done before, but now they only operate the lights, except
during competition, only one bank of lights and the others are cut off. They are operating all practices with the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 37 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED
east bank lights off. It was felt it was important to reduce any glare, and they went to extensive experiment and
expense to put new glare shields on.
Board Member Hoffmann stated the reason she asked the route the joggers would take is that they are
going to have to cross roads, and she wishes there were some way to teach the joggers how to obey traffic rules.
Mr. Moore responded they have a better opportunity to control the athletes as opposed to the other
students that jog. He said they jog with their student athletes which helps also. The students would only be
allowed to jog along this route as opposed to the East Hill route.
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the discussion of Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed
construction of additional athletic fields and facilities at Cornell University's Precinct 9 at 11:40 p.m.
y
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion regarding
the Northeast Subarea Transportation
Study (NESTS),
including the identification of transportation
issues and problems in the study
area.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 11:42 p.m., and read aloud from the
Agenda.
Director of Planning Kanter stated he wanted to update the Board on their study, they will be handing in
all the comments to the consultant who are putting everything together. It is going to compiled for a meeting
that will be held on May 16, 1998 at 8 :00 a.m. They are making an effort to go out to the public to get a lot of
comments.
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the discussion regarding the Northeast Subarea Transportation Study at
11:44 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes - March 3. 1998
MOTION BY Fred Wilcox, III, seconded by Eva Hoffman:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the March 3, 1998 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be
and hereby approved as written with corrections.
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYE: Wilcox, Hoffman, Bell, Kenerson.
NAYE: NONE.
ABSTENTION: Thayer.
THE MOTION was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 38 APRIL 21, 1998
APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED "APPROVED - APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox mentioned to the Planning Board that anyone who read the Ithaca Times that the
residents of the Mecklenburg Heights area are thinking about suing the town
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 21, 1998, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:47 p.m.
Prepared by:
Carrie L. Coates
Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder
Mary Bryant,
Administrative Secretary for the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca. Neq,v York 14850
Tuesday. April 21. 1994
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard.
7:35 P.��I. SEQR Determination, Modification of Subdivision Condition for deck addition. 13' . Woolf Lane.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of
Approval, which was granted on October
to permit a deck addition to a home at 132
Residence District R -15. Daniel Hammer
Crossmore Law Office, Ageru.
Nfoditication of Condition 2(b) of Final Subdivision
5. 1987, for the Westwood Hills Cluster Subdivision, in order
Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23- 1- 11.114.
and Wendy Hobbie. Owners /Applicants; Don Critterdon,
7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the
enactment of a proposed Local Law Arnendirg the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the
Construction and Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities,
8:05 P.M. Consideration of Determination of Significance of Environmental Impact regarding the proposed
rezoning, subdivision and site plan approval for the proposed construction of two buildings, one a 46
unit - 53 bed assisted living facility (approximately 38,800 +/- square feet), and the other a 32 unit - 36
bed Alzheimer /memory-care facility (approximately 18,800 +/- square feet), to be known as Sterling
House and Woven Hearts of Ithaca respectively, including parking, landscaping and other site
improvements, to be located on 8.24 acres at the intersection of NYS Rte, 96 /Tnunansburg Road
and Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2, Residence District R -15. Richard and
Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer Development Company, LLC, Applicant: Michael J. Villa. Agent,
8:35 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed construction of additional athletic fields and facilities at
Cornell university's Precinct 9, located behind and adjacent to the Reis Tennis Center off of Pine Tree
Road on Tax Parcel No's 60 -1 -5. 60- 1 -8.2. 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, and 60 -1 -18. Possible new facilities, as
described in the "Precinct 9 Planning Study Preliminary Report," October 1997, include two soccer
fields, one multipurpose field a changing facility, sic indoor squash courts, an outdoor horse show ring
at the Equestrian Center, and the addition of up to 106 new parkin_ spaces in front of the Equestrian
Center,
9:30 P.NI.
0
7
10.
Discussion regarding the Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS), including the identification
of transportation issues and problems in the study area.
Approval of Minutes
Other Business.
Adjournment,
March 199S (in packet)
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planninv
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY NIENIBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO .ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY
BRYANT AT 273- 17471
(A quorum of four (d) members is necessary to conduct P!annin, Board business.)
ednesda.
A 5 1998
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING 13OARD
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, April 210 1998
By direction of the
Chairperson of the Planning
Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held b Planning
Board of the Town of Ithaca
on Tuesday, April 21, 1998,
at 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the following
times and on the following
matters:
7:40 P.M. Consideration of
Modification of Condition
2(b) of Final Subdivision Ap-
proval, which was granted
on October 6 1987, for the
Westwood Hills Cluster Sub-
division, in order to permit a
deck addition to a home at
132 Woolf lane, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
23- 1- 11.114, Residence Dis-
trict R -15. Daniel Hammer
and Wendy Hobbie,
Owners /Applicants; Don
Crittendon, Crossmore Low
Office, Agent.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of a t
Recommendation to the Town
Board regarding the enact-
ment of a proposed Local -
Low Amending the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance
Relating to the Construction
and Maintenance of Tele-
communication Facilities
Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place
hear all persons in support of
such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual impair-
ments, hearing impairments
or other special needs, will
be provided with assistance
as necessary, upon request.
Persons desiring . assistance
must make such a request not
less than 48 hours prior to the
time of the public hearings.
Jonathan K .a; .1 A
Direaar of Planning
Dated: Monday 273-174
April 13, 1998
April 15, 1998
TOWN, OF ITHACA
.-AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PL BLICATIt )�N
4
I, Karen '.McGuire sworn. depose and sal- that lam a Secretati- for the To�Nn of Ithaca.
Tompkins County. New York: that the folloF ing Notice 1i as been duh' posted on the Sign board of
the Town of Ithaca and that said 'notice has been du1Y published in the local newspaper. The
Ithaca Journal.
`notice of Public H:arintTs to be held by the Town of Ithaca Plannin <_J Board in. To «r, of Ithaca
Town — - -- - - -- - - -- — -
Hall. 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca. \e�� York. on Tuesday. .�pril 21. 1998 cotrunencing at ?:3U
P.I.. as per attached.
Location of Sigh Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board, Front .Entrance of flown Hall.
Date of Postinuy
Date of Publi(.ation:
April 13.1998
ri1
15, 1998
S'TATE OF '_ UN. ' YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TONEPKINS )
Sworn to and Subscribed before me this
karen McGuire.S�cretanv
Town of Ithaca.
?1st day of Am" 1098.
Notan: Public.
JENNIFER WHITTAKER
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 WH5043338
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires May 08, 1994
TOWN OF ITEACz� PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesdav, April 21, 1998
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town
of Ithaca on 'Tuesday, April 21, 1998, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,
N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Modification of Condition 2(b) of Final
Subdivision Approval, which was granted on October 6, 1987, for
the Westwood Hills Cluster Subdivision, in order to permit a
deck addition to a home ar= 132 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 23- 1- 11.114, Residence District R -15. Daniel Hammer
and Wendy Hobbie, Owners Applicants; Don Crittendon, Crossmore
Law Office, Agent,
7:50 P.M. Consideration of a Recc=endation to the Town Board regarding
the enactment of a prcpcsed Local Law Amending the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Construction and
Maintenance of Telecommur_ication Facilities.
Said Planning Board will
support of such matters
agent or in person.
impairments or other spe
necessary, upon request.
request not less than 48
at said tires and said place hear a.11 persons in
or objections thereto. Persons may appear by
Individuals with visual impairments, hearing
!cial needs, will be provided with assistance as
Persons desiring assistance must make such a
hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan
Director
273 -1747
Dated:
Monday, April 13,
1998
Publish:
Wednesday, April
15,
1998
Kanter, AICP
of Planning
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
Hammer/Hobbie Deck Attachment
132 Woolf Lane
Modification of Condition of Subdivision Approval
Planning Board, April 21, 1998
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Lawrence Thaver:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is Consideration of Modification of Condition 2(b) of Final Subdivision Approval, granted on October
67 1987, and modification of Section 33 Buffer Zone Requirement of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, fo
deck addition to a home at 132 Woolf Lane. located in the Westwood Hills Cluster Subdivision; Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 23- 1- 11.11.4; Residence District R -15. Daniel Hammer and Wendy Hobbie,Owners /Applicants;Don
Crittendon, Crossmore Law Office, Agent, and
2. The Planning Board, in granting Final Subdivision Approval on October 6, 1987 imposed certain conditions of
approval, as outlined in the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, including Condition 2(b) that there be at least a
foot wide vegetative buffer along the entire perimeter of the property, except the portion adjacent to the public open
space, and
3. The applicant has submitted a request that a deck addition be permitted to encroach within the required 30 foot buffer
zone along the perimeter of the property; which would be approximately 19.4 +/- feet from the property boundary, an
4. The Planning Board, at the Public Hearing on April 21, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part II
prepared by planning staff, a survey entitled '`Survey Map- Lots No. 1, 2, & 3 Westwood Hills Residential
Subdivision, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Allen Fulkerson, L.S., of T.G
Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated September 6, 1988 and most recently amended May 14, 19
and additional application materials, and
5. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental
review, has, on April 21, 1998, made a negative determination of environmental significance.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants the above referenced modification of Condition 2(b) of the Final Subdivision
Approval, granted on October 6, 1987, and modification of Section 33 Buffer Zone Requirement of the Town of Itha
Subdivision Regulations, in order to permit the deck addition located on 132 Woolf Lane, as shown on the survey ent
"Survey Map- Lots 1, 2, & 3 Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins Coun
New York," prepared by Allen Fulkerson, L.S., of T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated
September 6, 1988 and most recently amended February 111 1998, subject to the following condition:
a. That no additions to the deck nor any future replacement of the deck shall encroach further into the buffer zone
than the existing deck, as shown on the above referenced survey map.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Thayer, Bell.
NAYS - None.
he MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
u
Karen McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca.
Mar Bryan dministra ' e Secretary.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION SEQR
Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage (formerly
Woven Hearts)
1138 Trumansburg Road (at intersection of Bundy Rd.)
Rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval
Planning Board, April 21, 1998
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
.4-
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering the proposed rezoning, subdivision and
site plan approval for the proposed construction of two buildings, one a 46 unit - 53 bed
assisted living facility (approximately 28.800 +/- square feet), and the other a 32 unit - 36 bed
Alzheimer /memory -care facility (approximately 18,800 +/- square feet), to be known as
Sterling House of Ithaca and Sterling Cottage (formerly Woven Hearts) respectively, including
parking, landscaping and other site improvements, to be located on 8.24 +/- acres at the
intersection of NYS Rte. 96 /Trumansburg Road and Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 27 -1 -11.2, Residence District R -15. Richard and Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer
Development Company, LLC, Applicant; Michael J. Villa, Agent, and
2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated August 11, 1997, has referred the
petition to rezone the above- referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation,
and
3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
intent to serve as lead agency
environmental review of the proposf
proposed Sterling House of Ithaca &
in a letter dated April 3, 1998, has circulated a notice of
to involved and interested agencies regarding the
:d rezoning. Site Plan and Subdivision Approval for the
Sterling Cottage proposal, and
4. The proposed rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval are Type I actions pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Reviexv Act. 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local
Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of
Ithaca, and
5. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on April 21, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant,
Parts II and III of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other
application materials, including a Design Review Application (April 21, 1998). a
Stormwater Management Study (March �27. 1998). excerpts from a feasibility study
regarding traffic impacts (March 1998). and supplemental information provided by
Trowbridge and Wolf (April 15, 1998), all of which are incorporated into the EAF, and
ADOPTED RESOLUTION SEQR
Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage (formerly
Woven Hearts)
1138 Trumansburg Road (at intersection of Bundy Rd.)
Rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval
Planning Board, April 21, 1998
6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed rezoning. Site Plan and Subdivision Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review
Act for the above referenced actions as proposed and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required.
AYES- Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Thayer, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Karen McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca.
2
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating
to the Construction and Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities
Recommendation to the Town Board
Planning Board, April ? 1, 1998
i4OTION by Eva Hoffman. seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
The Town Board has proposed a "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the
Construction and Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities." and
2. Said proposed local law would provide standards through a special approval process for the siting, design,
maintenance and removal of telecommunication towers and related facilities within the Town of Ithaca, and
3. The Town Board referred said proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their
recommendation, and
4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 21. 1998, has reviewed the above - referenced local law
and a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II, prepared by the Town planning staff for the Town
Board, which will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed local law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance, hereby finds that:
a. There is a need for the proposed local law regarding the construction and maintenance of
telecommunication facilities, as stated in Section 70A - "Purpose" of that proposed local law, and
b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected; and
C. The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and
will provide the Town with reasonable controls regarding the construction and maintenance of
telecommunication facilities within the Town of Ithaca; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the
proposed "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Construction and
Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Kenerson, Thayer.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca.