Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1998-06-16COPY TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUNE 16,1998 � e clerk_ The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 16, 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT. Chairperson Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann (7:35 p.m.), Gregg Bell, Robert Kenerson, Jim Ainslie, Lawrence Thayer, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Town Attorney, 7:45 p.m.), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering, 7:51 p.m.), Susan Ritter (Environmental Planner, 8:16 p.m.), Christine Balestra (Planner). ALSO PRESENT. Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive, Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf, David Cook, 1 Perry Lane, Richard De Paolo, 939 East Shore Drive, Cvnthia Bond, True Walsh and Miller, Carl Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road, Dick Perry, 107 Bundy Road, Kathy Graham, Home Properties, Dave Glasow, Home Properties, Jim Eavenson, 1117 Trumansburg Road, Steven Hyde, 1117 Trumansburg Road, Michael Villa, Pioneer Development, Robert Wied, Pioneer Development, James Dougan, Pioneer Development, Lauren Stanforth, Ithaca Journal, Becky Bilderback, Better Housing, Beth Redman, Address Unknown, Tammv Akin, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 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 June 8, 1998, and June 10, 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 June 10, 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. Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive, stated she had provided the Planning Board with handouts. One of the handouts was the pamphlet put together by seventeen Cornell University scientists in 1968. This pamphlet contained measurements of the Lake Source Cooling for a nuclear power plant then being proposed and the decline fo water quality in Cayuga Lake. She also provided a copy of a statement in which she documented why the monitoring in the SPDES permit was inadequate. Ms. Higgins also provided a page from the appendix that showed how the project was based on assumptions. Ms. Higgins stated they are scientific assumptions but that does not mean they are cold, hard facts. It was a good example of how many projections were made from assumptions. �y Planning Board Minutes Page 2 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms. Higgins felt the Town Board put itself in serious jeopardy by voting a zoning change for the Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project in view of the serious delinquencies in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES permit. She urged the board to withhold Final Site Plan Approval until the SPDES permit for monitoring the project has been re- written. She stated the way the permit currently reads it is meaningless and does not provide protection to the community against possible damage to Cayuga Lake. Ms. Higgins stated she was an old Vermont farmer and the last place she would have thought of coming to be saved was the Planning Board. She explained there are two farmers on the board and they may have the same sense she has of dealing with the realities of the earth. She is a practical person who looked at what was being done. Ms. Higgins asked the board to please read her handouts. She feels the town had abdicated its power. The Planning Board has the power because it has not given Final Site Plan Approval. The Town had abdicated that power by approving the rezoning before they made a request for the monitoring to be more accurate. Ms. Higgins explained the current monitoring guidelines do not offer protection. The SPDES permit only states ways data is to be collected. There are no specifications on what to do with the data and what comparisons are to be made. The draft SPDES had a mild suggestion that Cornell University have baseline data but it was removed in the Final SPDES. The permit stated testing for water temperatures be done near the outfall pipe. It was crossed out and is no longer present in the Final SPDES permit. In the Final version, testing could be done a significant distance away from the pipe. Ms. Higgins stated the SPDES monitoring permit needs to be re- written by a professional. She stated the town was making an arrangement with Cornell University about monitoring. Ms. Higgins felt an arrangement between the town and Cornell would not have the legal weight that specifications in the state permit would have. The state permit should be the one that sets the monitoring standards to insure the safety of the lake. There were five graphs showing phosphorous plume. Then she showed the area where all of the testing needs to be done. The location of the two areas is a great distance apart. She felt there were many questions she did not understand. Board Member Ainslie stated he understood her concern. He came to America in 1929, when he was 9 years old. In the 1930s he swam at Stewart Park. The southern end of the lake is currently in bad shape and it has nothing to do with Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling Project. Board Member Ainslie asked Ms. Higgins why does not her group and all that she was concerned about work on that angle. Regardless of what happens with Lake Source Cooling the southern end of the lake is a mess. Ms. Higgins responded that one of the scientist in the 1968 report and a scientist who spoke at the Bookery Awards both said to be aware of the importance to incremental additions. The fact there currently are bad areas in the lake does not justify Board Member Ainslie saying it is all right to add to that problem. Board Member Ainslie felt the environmental groups have missed the point that they should have been working on. There is pollution from Six Mile Creek, houses and farmland entering into the lake. He stated those are the areas she should be concerned about. Then the Lake Source Cooling Project would not be a real problem. Planning Board Minutes Page 3 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms. Higgins stated if the lake was clean none of those items would be a problem. Cornell University's Lake Source Cooling may be a small proportion of the problem, but it would be an addition to the pollution that is already going on. She stated all she is asking was to have the monitoring requirement be more strict. Board Member Ainslie stated he wished the environmentalists, would put their efforts into cleaning up the southern end of the lake. Richard De Paolo, East Shore Drive, stated he did not know what kind of pressure could be exerted on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He did not know what jurisdiction the Planning Board has. He stated he thought the town monitoring arrangement is deficient. It does not require the town's consultant to establish a separate baseline from Cornell's data. Mr. De Paolo stated he realized that on a local level, money makes a big difference. The town monitoring arrangement provided for $50,000 over five years. He found it particularly curious when Cornell University had spent over $100,000 in less than two years to acquire their data. Mr. De Paolo stated the board has an opportunity to hold out for enough money to do the job right. He felt that $10,000 a year would not cover the expenses of a consultant. Mr. De Paolo stated he remembered being at a Planning Board meeting before the board approved the Preliminary Site Plan. He remembered Board Member Ainslie stating he did not think he could approve the plan due to the deterioration of the Cayuga Heights Sewage Treatment Plant. At that point Board Member Ainslie did not think reintroducing that level of phosphorous would be a good idea considering the damage that was already being done. Mr. De Paolo stated he was unsure what happened between that meeting and the vote, but those conditions still exist. He agreed something needs to be done. Mr. De Paolo thought Cornell University should be asked to provide more money for monitoring but also make improvements to the Cayuga Heights Sewage Treatment Plant. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Tullson Subdivision, 1305 East State Street. Cynthia Bond, True Walsh and Miller, stated they had submitted an application for subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -1, 1305 East State Street. The parcel is approximately 1.65 acres and is located on the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca line. The purpose of the subdivision is to convey a portion of the property to the City of Ithaca to consolidate for substitute park lands. She had conversations with Attorney Geldenhuys, City Attorney, about the City's position. There were access issues. Ms. Bond understood the City intends to consolidate the parcels so it would not be a problem. She stated she had discussed with the Planning Board about recommendations regarding no further development on the remaining .33 acre parcel. The recommendation was not to further develop the parcel and Ms. Bond's does not have a problem with that. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there were any environmental concerns other than potentially good ones. There will be another acre of land being added to the Six Mile Creek Watershed under the ownership of the city. Planning Board Minutes Page 4 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Boardmember Hoffmann stated she did not find the Geldenhuys letter. Ms. Bond stated she was unable to receive a final letter. She had spoken with Ms. Cornish in the City's Planning Department and Planner Balestra and she understood there was communication between the city and the town. Planner Balestra stated the town has not received a letter. They did look at the site and noticed there is an access road off Giles Street, which is the Six Mile Gorge Wild Flower Preserve and it abuts that property. It abuts the corner of the property across from the towns property. Board Member Bell asked if it was the .33 acres that were to remain in the Town of Ithaca. Planner Balestra responded it was the opposite corner. Director of Planning Kanter stated the issue was, would there be access to this parkland or watershed if it were taken over by the city. Planner Balestra showed the area she was referring to from an aerial photograph. Board Member Bell asked if the access is on the property that is being conveyed. Planner Balestra stated to her knowledge there was access because there was a gate across the entrance of Six Mile Wild Flower Preserve. Attorney Barney asked to be shown where the road was referenced on his map. Planner Balestra explained where the access road would be. Attorney Barney asked if the access was on the northern side or on the water shed side. Planner Balestra stated it was clear to her. Director of Planning Kanter stated the 1.08 acres parcel the city would be purchasing would be consolidated with Parcel 55 -1 -1. That was the location where the city access already exists. The question did not pertain to the separate 1.08 acre parcel because it would become part of the bigger water shed. Attorney Barney asked if the board was satisfied that 55 -1 -1 has access to something. Planner Balestra stated she could get a letter stating there is access. Attorney Barney stated we want a letter or some kind of demonstration showing there is access to the site. We want to be certain that there is access. Board Member Kenerson asked if it was part of the Conservation District. Planning Board Minutes Page 5 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Director of Planning Kanter stated part of the property is in the Conservation Zone. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board does not want to permit subdivision of a landlocked piece of land. Board Member Bell stated from the aerial photograph it appears there is a building in the middle of the parcel. Ms. Bond stated there is a barn on the parcel. Board Member Bell asked if the barn would be in the area to be retained. It has a gravel drive that meanders to State Street. Planner Balestra stated it is part of the applicant's personal driveway. The gravel drive goes up to the house, then extends to the barn. Board Member Bell stated he thought there were not buildings on the site. He asked if they were saying the applicant could not build anything else on the site. Chairperson Wilcox stated he was not sure they were saying that. Board Member Bell stated it was a proposed deed restriction. If the barn were to fall down they would not be able to build a new barn. Director of Planning Kanter stated they proposed in the resolution that no further development other than accessory buildings or structures may take place on the parcel. That was because a piece of that parcel remaining in the Town of Ithaca is technically a part of the parcel in the City of Ithaca. We wanted to make sure a principal structure is not built on the remaining piece. Chairperson Wilcox stated for the record they had the letter from Robert Planning at Tompkins County. The letter indicated no significant impact on the communitS7 and further stated they were supportive of the additional land being added to the Six Mile Creek holdings. MOTION made by Gregg Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson. WHEREAS: 16 This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 1.08 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 584-1, +/- 1.63 acres total area, located on the East side of the Six Mile Creek watershed, at 1305 East State Street, for conveyance to the City of Ithaca for use as substitute public park land, Residence District R -15 and CD- Conservation District. Elaine Tullson, Owner; True, Walsh, and Miller, LLP, Agent, and Planning Board Minutes Page 6 June 16,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on June 16, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a plat entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands to be Acquired by the City of Ithaca from Elaine Tullson, Six Mile Creek Watershed, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated June 12, 1997, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1+ /- acre of land from a parcel at 1305 East State Street, which straddles the City/Town boundary; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -14; Residence District R45 and Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District. The parcel is to be acquired by the City of Ithaca and consolidated with City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 111 -9 -9, for incorporation into the city's existing Six Mile Creek holdings, as part of the ongoing alienation of park land on the Inlet Island. Elaine Tullson, Owner /Applicant; True, Walsh, and Miller, LLP, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated he hesitated when reading the Tax Parcel No. for consolidation because he was unsure if it was the same Tax Parcel No. as in the resolution. The resolution indicated the consolidation of 55 -14. Attorney Barney stated Tax Parcel No. 111 -9 -9 was the portion that was in the city. Planning Board Minutes Page 7 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Director of Planning Kanter stated the parcel in the town had been subdivided as 58 -1 -1. He stated he believed it was correct in the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox stated it would be consolidated with 55 -14. That was not what the public hearing notice said. It said 111 -9 -9. Attorney Barney stated that subdivision 55 -1 -1 was itself part of the town's portion of 111 -9 -9. Chairperson Wilcox asked if 55 -1 -1 was the logical parcel to consolidate•it with. Attorney Barney stated that was correct. MOTION by Lawrence Thayer, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 18 This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 1.08 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 584-1, located on the East side of the Six Mile Creek watershed, at 1305 East State Street, for conveyance to the City of Ithaca for use as substitute public park land, Residence District R45 and CD- Conservation District. Elaine Tullson, Owner; True, Walsh, and Miller, LLP, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on June 16, 1998, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part H prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 16, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands to be Acquired by the City of Ithaca from Elaine Tullson, Six Mile Creek Watershed, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated June 12, 1997 and other application materials; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 18 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 1.08 acres of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 584-1, located at Planning Board Minutes Page 8 June 16, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 -APPROVED -APPROVED 1305 East State Street, as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands to be Acquired by the City of Ithaca from Elaine Tullson, Six Mile Creek Watershed, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated June 12, 1997, subject to the following conditions: a. within six months of this approval, conveyance of the +/ -1.08 acre parcel, as shown on the Final Plat for the Tullson 2 -Lot Subdivision, to the City of Ithaca; and the submission of a copy of the deed for such conveyance to the Town Planning Department, be within six months of this approval, consolidation of the conveyed +/- 1.08 acre parcel, with Tax Parcel No. 55 -1 -1; and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for consolidation of said parcel with Tax Parcel No. 5544, co the submission for review and approval by the Town Attorney, prior to the signing of the plat of a deed restriction indicating that the 0.33 + /- acre portion of Tax Parcel 584 -1 remaining in the Town of Ithaca shall not be considered a separate lot for sale or building purposes, and that no further development takes place upon said parcel, other than buildings or structures accessory to uses on the remaining lands of Tullson located in the City, which deed restriction shall be recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's office within six months of this approval, do the receipt of any required or necessary approvals by the relevant City of Ithaca agencies, e, submission to and approval by the Town Attorney prior to signing the plat, of evidence demonstrating there is access to the parcel (Town of Ithaca parcel 554-1) with which the 1.08+ parcel is to be consolidated, f. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation or payment of a fee in lieu of such land dedication, having determined from the materials presented, that a proper case does not exist for requiring that a park or parks be suitably located as part of the proposed plat; and that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Ainslie, Bell, Kenerson. NAYS - None. Planning Board Minutes Page 9 June 16,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6. 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final 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 respectively, including parking, landscaping and other site improvements, to be located on an 8.24 + /- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 274-11.2, consisting of a total of 133.76 + /- acres, at the intersection of NYS Rte. %/Trumansburg Road, Residence District R45 and Special Land Use District (SLUD). Richard and Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer Development Company, LLC, Applicant; Michael J. Villa, Agent. Michael Villa, Pioneer Development, stated from the resolution there were a few changes the board would like to discuss. He had talked to Director of Planning Kanter and they had made the changes prior to that evening. Chairperson Wilcox stated they would go over the changes first. Director of Planning Kanter stated the item that dealt with the parking was an oversight. When he was reviewing the plan initially, there were actually two different areas shown on the plan for potential parking. He had missed the second lot that had the other eight spaces. Some of the Preliminary Plans had lighting specs or the flood lights along the driveway and parking areas. Mr. Villa has provided them with additional lighting information that could be considered for the Final Plan review. There were also questions about the signs. Mr. Villa stated the sign would be located on the corner of Bundy Road and Trumansburg Road. There would be another sign at the entrance stating "ENTER," that would be located off Bundy Road, Chairperson Wilcox asked how the entrance sign would work with the zoning ordinance. Director of Planning Kanter stated he understood from conversations that Mr. Villa had with Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost that Mr. Frost, did not consider the entrance sign a free standing sign. Attorney Barney stated there were exceptions for directional purposes. Director of Planning Kanter stated that as long as the sign does not contain other information it is within the zoning requirement. Otherwise it meets the four square feet residential sign regulation. Attorney Barney stated all districts included entrance, exit and directional signs. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Director of Planning Kanter stated the one thing he is not sure about on the entrance sign is the actual height of the sign. He asked if the dark line through the post was ground level. (Referring to the rendering.) Board Member Ainslie asked if there was a possibility the sign would cause problems viewing traffic coming up on Route 96, Mr. Villa responded there would be no problems because it would be set off the road. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. and asked if any member of the public wished to speak. David Cook, 1 Perry Lane, stated he would like to point out why he was concerned with this issue at such a late date in time. He provided a drawing of his view from his house to the board. Mr. Cook read from a prepared statement. "The first information received on this project was sent to me by the Perrys on July 14, 1997. In this letter, the Perrys were kind enough to inform us of their plans. They went on to state that the neighbors would be receiving notices of meetings concerning the development of this directly from the Town of Ithaca. The only notices that I received from the Town of Ithaca were after my letters of March 24, 1998, to the Town Board, Building Inspector, Zoning, Engineering, and Planning Departments. It is somewhat disconcerting as a tax payer that my questions and requests went unanswered by all who had received the letters. I should point out that Board Member Thayer was kind enough to call me after receiving a copy of letter in an attempt to let me know what was going on with this project." "As I have been working in Schenectady, New York since January my request to receive copies of Minutes of Meetings and proposals on the project did not seem out of line. I can only assume the reason my letters went unanswered was due to the fact that all who received them were too busy working to answer a lowly tax paver. " "I bought the lot located on 1 Perry Lane from the Perrys. I subsequently built a home on the same lot. The final decision on the purchase of the lot was that I was buying a view from the Perrys. I have included copies of some of the pictures taken as the house is being constructed as what the view was. As you can see, the view is farmland, barns, somewhat of a lake view, as well as Cornell University and Ithaca College. The Perrys' request for a zoning change in construction of two large buildings, 28,800 and 18,800 square feet, is a contradiction to the bill of goods they sold to me and my neighbors on Perry Lane. The artist rendering that was sent, copy attached, shows a quaint unintrusive building and does not show the 14,494 square feet of roof that will now be in my view. I assume I would only be seeing half of the roof. Looking at the pictures, I have not the slightest idea if I will be looking at half of the roof of each building, or 28,800 square feet of one roof and 18,800 square feet of another roof. In the packet that I have prepared, I have drawn my own rendering of me, on my property trying to look over these new views." "In their letter, the Perrys talk about the development of their farm. It is obvious that the use of the term farm is for tax purposes only. They state that the rest of the farm will someday probably Planning Board Minutes Page 11 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED be all private residences. In their letter they stated, "This concept should serve the greater Ithaca community as a whole." What about the concept of serving the people to whom they sold the property to." "The Ithaca Journal has written articles based on information received from the Town of Ithaca with grandiose ideas of purchasing farmland at tax payers expense to avoid this development of farmland from happening. I wonder just what neighborhoods are worth saving. Zoning laws are passed to protect the value of property. You, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, have a great responsibility to develop and protect the town. In my opinion, you are attempting to develop, but not protecting." "In conclusion, I assume that this is a done deal. As a tax payer I to have to sue to protect the value of my property and view as did the frugal Scotsman, I assume that once the value of my property is dama would be in order to compensate me for the value of the property paid the price of the house built on the same property. I would assume the town that allowed this zoning change to occur would be liable. I would have also expressed concern over this project would join me in this class do not feel that this is my job West Hill Association. As a ged by this project, litigation to the Perrys and in addition owners, developers, and the hope that my neighbors who action suit." "I would finally suggest the Town of Ithaca Planning Board not look at the letterhead of Shalebrook Farm with a lovely picture of a cow. Look at it as a Shalebrook Development and change the dairy cow to that of a cash cow. If Shalebrook wants to develop their farm, do so. Do not hide behind terms of developing the farm and then state it will not be a farm. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, generally speaking it is a duck. If the town grants a zoning change, then tax the farm for what it is, not what it used to be." Mr. Cook stated his house was built with picture windows toward the view, and all five houses constructed on Perry Lane were all designed showing the view of the lake. Looking at the copy that he received by the Perrys, it does show that these buildings appear to be bigger than the farm. The view he has of the lake would be eliminated by the structure. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. with no other persons present to be heard. Director of Planning Kanter stated as follow -up to the comment that the Town Board did actually rezone the project site at their June 8, 1998. He explained it was a done deal, not sarcastically, it had happened. The Planning Board was simply considering Final Subdivision and Site Plan Approval, Chairperson Wilcox stated in the materials provided to the board there is a letter dated June 15, 1998, from Kathleen Friedrich who lives at the intersection of Bundy Road and Trumansburg Road. She provided her comments to the board in writing. Mr. Cook asked if the comments were in favor of the development. Planning Board Minutes Page 12 June 16,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox responded they are not. Ms. Friedrich talks about excessive traffic, light pollution and view obstruction. Mr. Cook asked why his requests were not responded to. Chairperson Wilcox asked to which request he was referring. Mr. Cook said he did not receive an answer to his letters sent to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Building Inspector, Zoning, Engineering and Planning. He also requested copies of Minutes of any meeting and further requests of proposed development at all three sites. Mr. Cook stated in his letter if that could not be done, he should be notified as soon as possible. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Cook when the letters were sent. Mr. Cook responded they were sent March 24, 1998. He explained that the first he had heard of the development was when flyers were put on his mailbox by the West Hill Association talking about the Mecklenburg Site (Linderman Creek Apartments). Mr. Cook stated that was when he started investigating on his own. He said the town never notified him of the development. Attorney Barney asked if his property adjoins the project property. Mr. Cook stated if the farm property adjoins his property, he thought it would be necessary to let the neighborhood know. Attorney Barney stated the Town's custom, it was not required by law, is to do two things. One is to send notices to people whose property immediately adjoins the parcel that is subject to the action. The second thing that is done is a sign is posted on the property itself indicating there is something going on with the property. Mr. Cook stated he did not know if that sign was ever posted. Attorney Barney asked if he ever followed up on his letter by calling anybody at the town regarding his request. Mr. Cook answered Board Member Thayer received a copy of the letter in his packet and called him to give him some information. Attorney Barney stated typically the information he was asking for he was entitled to receive. They were not disseminated generally because someone asked for them. He said he was surprised he did not get some kind of response saying if he came to Town Hall he could get what he wanted for a certain amount of money. Mr. Cook stated he should have been notified since his property butted up next to the development property. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 June 16,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1995 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated he has the Secretary's Affidavit indicating that for this evening's public hearing David Cook of 1 Perry Lane was sent a letter. Mr. Cook responded after he sent his letter he received notices of the meetings. What he did ask for was the minutes so that he could know what was happening. Chairperson Wilcox stated he could not respond to that request. He remembers the letter he had sent, but he is unable to respond to the other requests. Mr. Cook stated the picture he provided to the board does not properly sum up what was going to be developed. Boardmember Hoffmann stated the board has a drawing that shows the entire parcel, including Perry Lane, it shows Joseph Lane and Riley Drive that had been approved at an earlier time. Mr. Cook stated he had and they were a part of his original letter. He had since heard that the West Hill Association was looking at a law suit. In his opinion, it was a done deal and if it helped the tax base that was fine. The vote against Walmart was because of a viewshed view from the top of the falls when there were no leaves on the trees, even though persons were not supposed to be there, it stopped Walmart. His view out of the picture window of his bedroom, living room, and kitchen would now have a roof line blocking his view. Boardmember Hoffmann stated she understood his concern with the view. It is something she is personally very concerned about also. The board talked about it often when there are views which might be obstructed. The board talked about the view in regards to the project. It was asked whether the applicant had come in with drawings that showed how the view would be obstructed. Mr. Cook stated that was why he had pictures for them. He would not know how much of his view would be obstructed until the building was built. At that point he would have to make a decision as to what his options were because of the damage done to his property. Boardmember Hoffmann stated the point she was trying to make is he aware of the other roads and lots that have been laid out and are closer to him. Mr. Cook stated that when he bought the property, looking at a farm in front of him, he assumed there was a farm in front of him. He stated he should have checked to see if there were going to be a zoning change in the future. It appears there was. Board Member Ainslie stated that before he became a understood there were twenty -one lots laid out. The lot where lots, and the lots below might have been two -story houses. Wh is he aware of the possibility of lots being sold below him that than the proposed project member on the Planning Board he Mr. Cook built is located in the top en the whole expansion is completed would interfere with his view more Planning Board Minutes Page 14 June 16, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Cook stated he was transferred into the area so he did not have a clue. Attorney Barney stated they had pulled out the affidavits for the Sterling House and Sterling Cottage public hearings and they indicate that he was mailed a notice. One was on May 1, 1998, regarding the original application for a Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Preliminary Subdivision Approval. On the 21st day of April 1998, he was also mailed the notice. Mr. Cook stated he fully agreed and that was what he pointed out in his statement. That was when he started to receive notices. He wanted it known that he was out of town so he was unable to attend meetings or to hear what was being done. Attorney Barney stated he thought Mr. Cook had said he was not notified of any of the process. He explained the affidavits were basically the entire proceeding. Each time there had been a public hearing, notice was sent to Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook asked what the measurements of the main sign are. Director of Engineering Walker stated the sign is forty -eight inches high and sixteen inches wide. Boardmember Hoffmann stated they tried to make sure the building would be set in such a way that it would not obstruct the view. The roof line would disturb as little of the view as possible. Board Member Bell stated it was not true that he would not know about the view until the buildings are built. Part of the purpose of planning is to know impacts prior to things being built. The board put the developer through rigorous tests of looking at a cross sectional view of the land. Board Member Bell stated the board is strict with every applicant. One of the things the board did receive is a cross sectional drawing that shows the profile of the existing land, the profile of the land as it will be excavated, the positioning of the building. It also includes various sight lines from different locations, including one close to Mr. Cook's house. Jim Eavenson, 1117 Trumansburg Road, stated a neighbor, who is German, received the information about this development, asked Mr. Eavenson to gather information. As he listened, he began to wonder how he would be affected and would like to know where he could obtain copies of the material related to the project. Chairperson Wilcox stated the materials are available to the public for the cost of reproduction. Attorney Barney stated he needs to come to Town Hall and ask for a Freedom of Information request. Mr. Eavenson asked if there is a possibility for more public input. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated the applicant has received their Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval, after public hearings. The Town Board, after a public hearing, rezoned the property. Mr. Eavenson asked if he would have been entitled to receive notices of the meetings as well. Attorney Barney stated no one is entitled in that sense to receive written notices. It is a courtesy the town does. The law requires them to publish it in the paper that they are going to be holding a public hearing. As a courtesy to those people surrounding the property, they try to notify everyone whose property abuts the property. That was done on three separate occasions. If Mr. Eavenson did not receive notices then his property did not abut the proposed project property. Chairperson Wilcox stated Mr. Cook has provided the board with a letter and drawings consisting of five pages. Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf, stated there were three types of lighting provided to the board that evening. Two types of lighting were addressed in that evening's resolution. The pole lights are to be located as shown on landscape plans L1 and L2. At the Preliminary Meeting, catalog cuts were provided of the lights. The information regarding pole height and wattage were provided. It was called sharp cut off fixtures because the intent is to receive adequate light but the light source would not be seen. With the older population glare is an issue. They want to make sure there is adequate lighting for safety on the site, but they want to make sure the sources will not disturb the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Trowbridge stated they did not include the pole height in the final submission. They did include the footer that is typical. He explained they would be happy to include the catalog specifications for the final drawing of record. One of the light types the board specified in the resolution was the architecturally mounted lights. He believed Mr. Villa provided pictures of the lights. The lights are to be carriage lights' wall mounted near the porches. Mr. Trowbridge stated they did not provide the recessed light under the porch. Typically those are not provided for Site Plan review, but he knows there is a concern regarding lighting the area. Those would be part of the architectural drawing. The third light would illuminate the building sign. On the next page of the booklet are barn door shutters. The barn door shutters, or house side deflectors would be brought up so that the sign could be illuminated and the light source would not affect the neighbors or people driving by. The fixture itself would be recessed in the housing. The lamp would be recessed behind glazing. In addition to that there will be house side shields provided on the sign lights. He stated that for the sign and pole lights there would be provided the technical specifications on the drawings for the plan of record. The architecturally mounted lights do not have specs available. He stated the light specs would be in the construction packet for buildings and could be reviewed by Director of Building and Zoning Frost. There was not the means for them to show the architecturally mounted lights on the Site Plan. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox asked if Mr. Trowbridge had seen the draft of the resolution they had provided. It includes the final details of the size, type, design, and intensity of all proposed lighting. Mr. Trowbridge stated he wanted to be clear that they are not actually going to show pictures. They would show a schedule of all the specific information about the lights, lamp, type, wattage, pole height as part of the record. The drawings themselves are not very meaningful without that type of information. Boardmember Hoffmann asked Mr. Trowbridge to show where the pole lights would be and how tall they would be. Mr. Trowbridge stated they were twenty feet high and then showed on the drawing where the lights would be located. Boardmember Hoffmann asked if the lights would only be along the entrance, northern and eastern space of the building. Mr. Trowbridge stated the lights would be in an area on the landscape side. There was a potential of having hot side shields on some of the lights that would be close to the building so they did not receive illumination into the windows. Board Member Ainslie stated on the back page the twenty foot light was circled. He asked if that is the one they are talking about. Mr. Trowbridge replied he was correct. He stated the shorter the poles, the more lights would needed. It was a balancing act between how to illuminate and to make it efficient. Boardmember Hoffmann asked how the height of the poles would be with respect to the total height of the building. Mr. Trowbridge stated the poles would be shorter than the highest points of the building. In terms of view issues, people looking from Perry Lane, the lights would be shorter than the crest of the building. Boardmember Hoffmann stated that in the pictures of the architectural lights it looks as if there would be clear glass through which the bulb could be seen. James Dougan, Pioneer Development, stated Boardmember Hoffmann was correct. The lights were currently specified as clear glass. The lights would be located at the exterior doors of the building and would be on a time clock. That allows them to come on upon getting dark, and then turning off around 10:00 p.m. He explained they could adjust the time if the town has certain requirements. Boardmember Hoffmann stated she was concerned with being able to see the bulb through the glass. She explained the glare of the bulb would not allow people to see the door. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Dougan replied the particular bulb would be a standard household bulb and the maximum would be a 100 watt standard light bulb. It would not be equipped for a halogen light, metal halide, or other types that at the same wattage produced more light. Mr. Villa stated they were similar to residential porch lights. Board Member Bell stated he would not have those lights on the outside of his house because they give off much glare. The inside of the bulb is what would be seen, not even the bulb. Mr. Villa stated they understand that and they are very conscious of that Boardmember Hoffmann suggested it may not be the right light type for that type of population. They may want something that provides the light but does not shine into people's faces when coming up to the door. She thought it was a good idea that they provided lighting for the sign, which does not produce glare for people who live in the area or people driving by. The intensity of the light is also a concern for her. Boardmember Hoffmann felt the sign should just be bright enough for people to read the sign. It should also be located so that it does not create a problem for people driving. Mr. Dougan stated the light would a ground mounted unit. It would be pointed toward the sign with the barn doors. The barn doors would limit the light to the sign and the barn doors would match the throw at the top and bottom of the sign. Tammy Akin, TG Millers, stated they submitted a record for approval of the status for the state and county applications. Director of Planning Kanter and Director of Engineering Walker received copies of those today. She stated they are waiting for a reply. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Trowbridge about the height of the plantings around the buildings. Mr. Trowbridge stated it was at the Preliminary meeting. They had tapered the proposed Perry driveway that would be a Trumansburg Road. There was concern of obstruct the view. He stated they tried to kE higher. environmental review. They responded to that at the trees such that there would be low :level trees along the maximum height of fifteen feet. Full size trees along people on Perry Lane and Bundy Road that trees not !ep the trees roughly at the level of the roof line and not The Planning Board had further discussion of the glass and the light bulbs used in the fixtures. It was agreed that frosted glass would replace the clear glass. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS, Planning Board Minutes Page 18 June 16,1998 APPROVED -APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 -APPROVED -APPROVED 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Final Subdivision Approval and Final 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 respectively, including parking, landscaping and other site improvements, to be located on an 8.24 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1- 11.2, consisting of a total of 133.76 +/- acres, at the intersection of NYS Rte. 96 /Trumansburg Road and Bundy Road, Residence District R -15 and Special Land Use District (SLUD). Richard and Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer Development Company, LLC, Applicant; Michael J. Villa, Agent. 2. The proposed rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review 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 39 The Planning Board acting as Lead Agency, 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), including a photographic visual analysis, all of which are incorporated into the EAF, and 4. Based on the above, the Planning Board, at its April 21, 1998 meeting, issued a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to the proposed rezoning, Site Plan Approval and Subdivision Approval, and 5. The Planning Board, after holding a Public Hearing May 5, 1998, and after reviewing and accepting as adequate preliminary plans for Sterling House of Ithaca and Woven Hearts, entitled "SK -2 Preliminary Subdivision Plat," dated 3/9/98, "SK -3 Site Plan," dated 3/9/98, "SK4 Site Section," dated 3/9/98, "C -1 Drainage & Erosion Control Plan," dated 3/19/98,,'C.. 2 Utility Plan.," dated 3/19/98, "C -3 Details," dated 3/19/98, "C-4 Details," dated 3/19/98, "L -1 Grading Plan," dated 3/19/98, "L -2 Landscape Plan," dated 3/19/98, "L -3 Site Details," dated 3/19/98, "Wovenhearts 36 Bed Memory Care" (building elevations), dated 3/17/98, "A -5 Sterling House Building Elevations," dated 3/6/98, additional materials included in the "Design Review Application - Woven Hearts & Sterling House of Ithaca," dated April 21, 1998, and other application materials, has granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval and has issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board to rezone the above - referenced 8.24 +/- acre parcel from R -15 Residence to Special Land Use District (SLUD), and 6. The Town Board, after holding a Public Hearing on June 8, 1998, has enacted a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to provide a Special Land Use District for the Sterling House Assisted Living Unit and the Sterling Cottage Dementia Unit, for the 8.24 +/- Planning Board Minutes Page 19 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED acre project site on a portion of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 41.2 at the intersection of Bundy Road and Trumansburg Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 10 That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 27- 141.2, into five lots, including Proposed Parcel A consisting of 4.24 +/- acres, Proposed Parcel B consisting of 3.995 +/- acres, "Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes" consisting of 12.8 +/- acres, "Proposed Tot Lot" consisting of 1.389 +/- acres, and the remaining portion of Tax Parcel No. 274-11.2 (Area Remainder of Farm) consisting of 119.966 +/- acres, as shown on the Final Subdivision Plat entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of Richard A. and Mary Louise Perry, Bundy Road and N.Y.S. Route 96, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," and subtitled "Sterling House and Sterling Cottage of Ithaca," dated 5/19/98, revised 6/11/98, prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., T.G. Miller, P.C., conditioned upon the following: a. Conveyance to the Town of Ithaca of the "Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes" and the "Proposed Tot Lot," together with the pedestrian rights -of -way from Perry Lane and Joseph Place shown on the plat in fee simple to provide access to the Tot Lot, within three months of the issuance of the first building permit on any lot and in any event prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy; and b. Conveyance to the Town of easements for access from Bundy Road to the "Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes ", through "Riley Drive" and the "temporary easement for park access ..." as shown on the final plat in form and substance satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town, within three months of the issuance of the first building permit on any lot and in any event, prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy, and c. Review and approval by the Attorney for the Town of the exhibits to the draft Reciprocal Easement Agreement relating to easements necessary to ensure ingress and egress, between Proposed Parcels A and B, over the driveways and parking lots, and easements between Parcels A and B for utility lines and drainage facilities, including storm drains and detention basin, to ensure that future owners of both parcels have full rights to use all of the above - mentioned facilities, and proof of recording the Reciprocal Easement Agreement and exhibits as so finally approved, prior to issuance of any building permits; and d• Before construction of any improvements anywhere on the Sterling House and Sterling Cottage of Ithaca project site is commenced, requirements of the Final Site Plan Checklist shall be met, and Planning Board Minutes Page 20 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED e. Signing of one original or mylar copy and three dark -line prints of the final plat by the Planning Board Chair, said plat to be filed in the County Clerk's Office, and a receipt of filing provided to the Town Planning Department, prior to issuance of any building permits; and 2. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the parkland dedications shown on the final plat, consisting of the " Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes" together with the "Proposed Tot Lot' that was to be dedicated to the Town in conjunction with previous subdivision of the Perry parcel, shall fulfill the parkland reservation requirements of the entire remaining lands in the original 133.76 +/- acre parcel which is the subject of this final subdivision approval. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage development to consist 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), including parking, landscaping and other site improvements, as shown on final plans for Sterling Cottage and Sterling House of Ithaca, entitled "SK -2 Preliminary Subdivision Plat," dated 3/9/98, "C4 Drainage & Erosion Control Plan," dated 5/15/98, "C -2 Utility Plan," dated 5/15/98, "C -3 Details," dated 5/15/98, "C4 Details," dated 5/15/98, "C -5 Detention Basin Plan & Details," dated 5/18/98, "L4 Grading Plan," dated 5/15/98, "L -2 Landscape and Sign Plan," dated 5/15/9818 "L -3 Site Details," dated 5/15/98, "L -4 Site Details," dated 5/15/98, "L -5 Site Details," dated 5/15/98, A2.0 Sterling Cottages (building elevations), dated 4/6/98, "A -5 Sterling House Building Elevations," dated 3/6/98, additional materials included in the Design Review Application - Sterling Cottage & Sterling House of Ithaca, Final Site Plan Review," dated May 15, 1998, and other application materials, conditioned upon the following: a. Inclusion of final details of size, type, design, and intensity of all proposed lighting on a site plan detail sheet, prior to issuance of any building permits, to include frosted glass on fixtures for exterior architectural lighting as discussed at this meeting; and b. Provision of a copy of DOT Highway work permit prior to issuance of any building permits and copies of all other necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy; 2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the Sterling House and Sterling Cottage of Ithaca development from 52 spaces to 41, as authorized in the local law providing for Special Land Use District No. 10, subject to the right of the Town, pursuant to the referenced provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, to require Planning Board Minutes Page 21 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6. 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED additional spaces if the reduced number of parking spaces is found by the Planning Board to be inadequate. Aye - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Thaver. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposal to convert the Biggs "A" Building (formerly the Tompkins County Hospital) into an 81 unit apartment facility, with support services, for low- income senior citizens. The development will 'involve substantial alterations to the existing building,, including demolition of certain portions of the structure. Improvements are also proposed for the surrounding grounds, including an upgrade of the existing parking area, increased handicapped accessibility, and landscape enhancements. A proposed Phase H of the project will be contingent upon market conditions, but could result in 40 additional apartment units and/or support facilities. Phase 11 would encompass the northernmost wing of the existing building and the portion of the structure which is currently occupied by the State Police. The proposed project is located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive, Tax Parcel No. 24-3 -2.22, Special Land Use District No. 3. Conifer Realty Corporation, Applicant, Daniel Glasow, AIA. and Ann McCormick, Esq., Agents. Kathleen Graham, Project Manager with Conifer Reality, stated their status is they have a purchase contract with Tompkins County that is contingent on financing the project and public approvals. The Planning Board meeting is their first step in the public approval process. They are waiting for news from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal regarding their request for tax exempt bond financing. Also for a Housing Trust Fund Low Interest Loan that would be part of their financial package. She stated they are also in the process of fine tuning their joint venture, partnership agreement with Better Housing. They will be working on putting together a package of services to provide two more renters on an as needed basis. It is something they will move into more as their funding becomes available. Ms. Graham stated they were working vigorously to have the building registered on the Register of Historical Places. She explained the board has received their submittal that includes most of the information on the project. Dan Glasow, Architect for Conifer, stated he would be presenting the adaptive reuse of the Biggs A building into a supportive living facility for the elderly community. They have been developing the project in two phases. The first phase is going to be 80 units. The second phase would depend on how successful they are with renting the first, but they would probably be adding an additional 40 units. Mr. Glasow stated the building was built in 1930. It was used as a state and county hospital until 1979. The building was largely unoccupied from 1979 until 1985. From 1985 to the present the building housed state and county offices, and a private research firm. He explained they have struggled with deciding what would be the best reuse for the building. They felt that senior housing would be the best use with relationship to the hospital. It is a wonderful site and a beautiful Planning Board Minutes Page 22 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED building. He felt it should stay as a resource to the Ithaca community. The building has wonderful views of the lake. Mr. Glasow explained the site is 10.65 acres. It is zoned Special Land Use District 3. Vehicle access from Route 96 is Harris B. Dates Drive that is located directly west of the site. They have found parking to be 3/4 per unit ratio for the number of parking spaces. The current parking count comes out to 218 spaces. There is also an additional area to be used to the East of the site. The parking areas are not in the best shape at the present moment. They are looking at demolishing that parking area and turning it into recreational use. Another parking lot is located to the West of the site. They feel they would need 100 parking spaces. It would be an elderly facility and not all of the residents would be driving cars. Chairperson Wilcox stated in general the board does not like asphalt. It is up to the applicant to show the board sufficient justification that a reduced number of parking spaces would be sufficient. Generally, the board allows the spaces to be reduced, but there would have to be space set aside for additional spaces if needed. Mr. Glasow stated there is a stand of trees on the West side of the building. They were planning on supplementing the landscaping with ornamental trees, and perimeter plantings. The lighting would be presented in the future presentations. There are existing pole lights and he feels they would not be adequate for the lighting intensity needed for the facility. They would be dealing with the State Historic Preservation Office with their approvals and they might make suggestions on the lighting. The topography of the site is gently sloping to the East with views of the lake. The building steps up as you approach the main entrance from the West. He stated they received comments from the County Planning Department. Their comments were to add sidewalks to the Medical Center and Transit Stop. Mr. Graham explained there is a sidewalk that runs to the West of the site and connects into the Tompkins Community Health Center. Mr. Graham stated they are going to see if Transit could make a stop directly at the front entrance. It would be very beneficial to their residents. Chairperson Wilcox stated he assums they have been in contact with other Conifer representatives that have been before the board. Access to the Mecklenburg Heights (Linderman Creek Apartments) with public transportation was important to the board and would be important in this application also. Environmental Planner Ritter stated that she and Planner Balestra visited the site Monday, June 15, 1998, and a transit bus came up to the entrance. The bus did not pick anyone up, but it did stop. It was the Trumansburg bus. Director of Planning Kanter stated the Biggs complex is on the current bus route. They might be reevaluating that given the current situation. Director of Engineering Walker stated the county moved out of the building two months ago and they, the Public Transit Organization, might not be aware of it. Planning Board Minutes Page 23 June 16,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Glasow explained the board also suggested they add would be a patio off the community room. A vegetable garden would be plenty of lawn area for recreation and passive sports. Tl trails to the eastern wooden area. Thev would like to do some views for the residents, outdoor recreational areas. One area would be provided. There iev were also looking into adding selective pruning to enhance the Chairperson Wilcox stated there is a dump in that vicinity. He assumed the county and the applicant would negotiate who would be responsible for its removal. Boardmember Hoffmann asked if there is existing parking on the East of the building. Mr. Glasow responded there is pavement but it is not in good shape. He feels there is not a need for it for their facility. Boardmember Hoffmann stated if there were a main entrance on the western side then access from the eastern side would not be needed. It would be more pleasant for the residents to turn that into a lawn area. Board Member Kenerson stated he was under the impression this is the A building, not B according to the drawings. Mr. Glasow replied that it is the A building. It is one building and they have just been dividing the building. Director of Planning Kanter stated the buildings are mislabeled on the drawings. Mr. Glasow stated the unit mix has changed from what the board was presented. They are going to concentrate it as 80 units for the first phase. There would be six studios which would range from 500 to 600 square feet, sixty -five one bedroom units that would be 600 -700 square feet and 9 two bedroom units ranging from 700 -800 square feet. There would be much common space within the buildings. A multi- purpose room would be included where a number of functions would be held. For example activities, movies, games, entertainment and a dining room. Directly adjacent would be a service kitchen. It would not be a commercial kitchen. The kitchen would be a residential kitchen. Chairperson Wilcox stated the market study referred to prepared data from Claritas Corporation. He explained he is the Vice President of Claritas. His primary responsibility is the development of the smaller area estimates which Conifer has used in their market study. He stated he was not aware that they had purchased the data from them and used it in their market study. Board Member Kenerson asked if Dates Drive is a municipal highway. Attorney Barney responded Dates Drive had been offered to become a municipal highway. Mr. Glasow showed the location of patio, kitchen and multi- purpose room on drawing Al. Planning Board Minutes Page 24 June 16, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Glasow stated the building steps up the hill so that the lowest level is just a portion of the building. Board Member Ainslie asked if the kitchen would be the one that is presently being used. Mr. Glasow stated the kitchen would be vacated. Board Member Ainslie asked if anv asbestos needed to be removed. Mr. Glasow replied there is some asbestos in the building. Mostly in the pipes and there will be an asbestos mitigation with the project. Board Member Kenerson asked if it is also in the floors. Mr. Glasow stated he was not sure there is asbestos in the floors but he would double check it. They would go through proper asbestos mitigation. Basically when they start construction they turn it into a shell. They remove all of the interior partition walls that are not bearing, and then they start from that point. They add new mechanicals. The mechanical system they are proposing is steam, and heat exchangers so that they could have hot water baseboard heat for all units. The units would be individually metered for electric use. The tenants would pay their own electricity, but the heat would be included in the rent. On the second floor they would add twelve units. The common areas would be the Service Office. The Service Office would be an area used by a visiting nurse, or someone of that nature. Each floor would include a trash room. Mr. Glasow stated they do not want their residents going out to the dumpsters. They do not want them going out into adverse climates in the winter. The corridors have trash rooms on each side. A convenience store is going to be included. Laundry and recycling areas would be provided on each floor. They are also looking into providing a barber shop and beauty salon. There would be a garage for the facility vehicles. Mr. Glasow stated there was an old elevator and it served the tower. There are currently three elevators in the project. One of the elevators would be eliminated because they feel two elevators would be sufficient. The third floor is on grade of the west side of the building. The main entrance would be on the third floor. There would be a lobby, elevator, rental office and they would also be opening some of the foyers. The building currently has a very institutional look. Opening up the foyers would break up the corridor. It would provide lounges. Light will be allowed into the corridor. The tower provides access to the units up above. They are placing a one - bedroom unit on each floor. Board Member Thayer stated the drawing indicated two bedroom units. Mr. Glasow explained they have recently changed the units in the tower from two to one. They found that two bedrooms were hard to market. Planning Board Minutes Page 25 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox asked if the tower would also be for low income tenants. Mr. Glasow stated the tower units would also be low income. Chairperson Wilcox stated it would be a first come, first served for the tower. Mr. Glasow stated the floor plans gave them plenty of opportunities to build additional units. He did not see the market for it at the present time. He stated they were wondering if they were going to be able to fill the second phase. That was the reason they are doing the project in two phases. The old sprinkler is going to be replaced. The elevators are also going to be replaced. An emergency call system is going to be provided for each unit. If someone would need help they would be able to call for help. There would be a light that flashes in the corridor, and an enunciator in a central location to alert that someone was in trouble. The units will have complete kitchen, bath, and bedrooms. The flooring materials for the kitchens and bathrooms would be a resilient flooring. Carpet will be used in bedrooms and living areas. The windows will be replaced to become more energy efficient The new wall construction on the interior will have insulation. These changes would provide for a more energy efficient building. Board Member Bell asked what would be done with the phase H portions of the building if they were not rehabilitated. Mr. Glasow stated they would basically be moth balled. Board Member Bell asked what maintenance would be done on it. Mr. Glasow stated they would have to heat it and they would continue to maintain it so it would not deteriorate. Board Member Bell asked if he meant they would board up the windows. Mr. Glasow stated that they would not and it would remain in its current condition. He explained there is currently an organization occupying the phase II portion, but they are going to relocate. Director of Planning Kanter asked if it was possible that some other organizations might occupy those areas. there. Mr. Glasow stated they would be open to organizations that would be willing to move in Board Member Bell asked if the occupants were vacating on their request. Mr. Glasow replied it was under their own desire. Planning Board Minutes Page 26 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated the building has a history of being a "sick building" and he did not know if they had clearly identified the problem. He thought it was tied to the ventilation system. Mr. Glasow stated some thought it was the formaldehyde in the carpets. Attorney Barney asked if they had studied that aspect and if they were comfortable that their proposed renovations would remove the problem. Mr. Glasow stated they are aware of the issue. They are going to have an environmental engineer come in and test the building to be sure it is no longer a "sick building ". He stated they were waiting for funding before they put more work into the building because they want to make sure the project is funded by the state. Director of Planning Kanter asked if Mr. Glasow could tell the board more about their funding. Ms. Graham stated they hope to hear by the end of June. The project would require tax exempt financing and funding from the Housing Trust Fund. The county would be loaning them $600,000 as part of the proposal. She explained they also have their own equity to invest. The tax credits would be a large part, the low income and historic tax credits. Board Member Ainslie asked Ms. Bilderback if this project would be competing with her other project. Becky Bilderback, Better Housing, stated the Linderman Creek Apartments (Mecklenburg Heights) was designed for low income families. Some elderly may live there, but it was designed primarily for families. The Biggs A building would be designed exclusively for elderly, disabled persons. Board Member Ainslie stated there would be not a competition between the two. Ms. Bilderback stated it would be a bigger competition between this and their projects in Trumansburg. She explained most of the units exceed the income allowed at Juniper Manor. Juniper Manor has a waiting list of about twenty or thirty. Juniper II has a higher income, but they have forty people on a waiting list. She did not see that as a big problem. Board Member Ainslie asked if Kendall is only 50% occupied. Ms. Bilderback stated she knew they are not 100% occupied. She talked with Bill DeWire 3 or 4 months ago. He said they have been slower in occupying than they wanted, but they were not unhappy with it The population between the two were totally different. Boardmember Hoffmann stated the report told of special services that would be provided through third parties. She wanted to know what the special services would be. Planning Board Minutes Page 27 June 16,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms. Graham stated they would be working with Ms. Bilderback and the hospital on putting together an array of services that they would offer to their tenants. She emphasized that services would not be a component of the housing type. They would like to offer services which residents could purchase on an "as needed" basis. That would enable them to stay independent longer while keeping the cost down. They are looking at nutritional services, meals, pharmacy, home health care, clinical services, OP /TP, speech, other rehabilitation, laboratory, nursing, medication management or administration, laundry, house keeping, and personal care. Then on a maintenance level snow removal, landscaping, security and safety. Boardmember Hoffmann asked if they were to add a pharmacy, would space set be aside in the building. Ms. Graham stated that they would have plenty of space they could identify where they could provide some of those things, or at least have the person on site. Boardmember Hoffmann stated they are talking about having historic preservation designation. She asked if that is so they could receive funding for the building project. Ms. Graham answered that was part of it. It is also a building that is worthy of preserving. It is a very attractive building and has had a rich history as a TB hospital. There are many unique features of the building that deserve to be preserved. They would like to seek the designation for that reason also. Director of Planning Kanter asked if the designation did not come through if it would affect the project. Ms. Graham stated it would not help them. They would have to look elsewhere to make up what they intended to benefit. Board Member Bell stated the building description described it as a good example of a historic tuberculosis hospital. There is some thought that the description might hinder their ability to receive the approval. The description should be rewritten to a broader category. The description is very limiting. Ms. Graham stated that it was good to hear. They work with a consultant. The consultant interfaced with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and was the person who wrote the description. They did not receive a warm response. They were making contact with local persons who had knowledge of the building and who had information on the project. Then they could help them present themselves in a different way so that they would be more successful. It was apparent to them from the letter they received from State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) that they had the misunderstanding that the tower was constructed after the rest of the building. When the building is looked at up close, it is obvious the materials are original materials. There needs to be some clarification, and some additional information. So they would be working on that. Planning Board Minutes Page 28 June 16, 1998 APPROVED -APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 -APPROVED -APPROVED Boardmember Hoffmann stated she would like to have a date on the market study. There is conflicting information, on the first page and on the second page introduction the number of units and the amount of rent do not coincide. Ms. Graham stated she noticed the error on the high end of the rent. She did not pick up the other error and they would like to correct both errors, and number the pages. Chairperson Wilcox asked if they hired an independent consultant to do their market study. Ms. Graham replied they normally did. They did their own work because of the date deadline. They came to a purchase agreement with the county and then scrambled to get their application in on time. She felt comfortable with the result. Board Member Ainslie stated he moved to Ithaca in 1929 and was here when they started to build the building. He thought maybe they were stretching it to think it is a historic building. Mr. Glasow stated the stipulation is fifty years. Board Member Bell asked for a few corrections. On one of the maps the hospital is labeled Tompkins Community Hospital and its current name is Cavuga Medical Center. There is a reference to conforming to the Secretary of Interiors standards. The way it is stated makes it sound as if the secretary would be in charge of the interior of the building. It is not what the secretary deals with and is not the name, Secretary of the Interiors', which meant the interior of the United States. Another error is the Paleontological Institution. It should read Paleontological Research Institute. Chairperson Wilcox asked how the exterior of the building would be changed. Mr. Glasow stated SHPO was going to have a large say in what they could or could not do with the exterior. His feeling was the exterior would to remain the same. In buildings they have done in the past, not even the windows could be changed. Energy panels need to be put on the inside. SHPO has a very strong presence on what could be done. Mr. Glasow stated the inside of the hospital is very institutional, and they could do what they wanted. Chairperson Wilcox stated the windows look to be in bad shape. Mr. Glasow responded the windows would have to be rehabilitated. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the roof is a slate tile roof. Mr. Glasow replied he was correct. Chairperson Wilcox stated Conifer owns one apartment house in Ithaca. He is impressed by how it looks. Planning Board Minutes Page 29 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms. Graham stated School House Apartments in Groton are also owned by Conifer. The old high school was converted. The project was started by another developer and Conifer took over. Chairperson Wilcox asked Director of Planning Kanter if the current zoning, Special Land Use District 3, allows for this use. Director of Planning Kanter responded that it allows multifamily housing, business use, and hospitals. It technically would allow mixed use which was one of the reasons he asked about leasing space. space. Chairperson Wilcox stated there were outside indications that private firms were renting Boardmember Hoffmann stated she felt good about what she had heard. Director of Planning Kanter asked what the time line is. Ms. Graham stated they had hoped to hear at the beginning of the month on the funding decision and they did not. They have selected an architect who would complete the design of the project. The architect would retain the site engineer. If they are not successful on the funding, they will work to fine -tune the services and find local support for the project and will resubmit the next round. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes. The April 7, 1998, April 21, 1998, and May 5, 1998, Minutes were not prepared for the June 16, 1998, meeting. AGENDA ITEM: Additional Business. Chairperson Wilcox stated the Planning Board is still looking for a seventh member. Board Member Thayer asked if there are restrictions on where they live. Chairperson Wilcox stated they must live in the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney stated beyond that there are no restrictions. Chairperson Wilcox stated a diversity in where the members live would be good to have. At the last Monday, June 8, 1998, the Town Board held a public hearing on the proposed Adult Entertainment rezoning. The zoning has been referred back to Codes and Ordinances for further work. At the next meeting the Planning Board will have a recommendation to extend the moratorium for another period of time. Then it would go back to Codes and Ordinances to possibly Planning Board Minutes Page 30 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED be revised and then back the Planning Board for recommendation to the Town Board. The residents did not like the THERM area for Adult Entertainment zone. Director of Planning Kanter stated the residents in the Inlet Valley area were equally adamant about the sites there. Planner Balestra asked if any of the board members are going to the proposed site areas for site visits. Director of Planning Kanter stated the Town Board is planning on site visits and could invite the Planning Board members. The idea is to visit the light industrial zones. Chairperson Wilcox stated there was material on Precinct 9 presented to them for the site visit scheduled for June 23, 1998, at 3:30 p.m. Board Member Bell asked if the residents have been invited. Director of Planning Kanter stated they asked Cornell to invite the residents as well as other neighborhood groups. Boardmember Hoffmann asked for the discussion of the resolution to be included in the minutes. Attorney Barney stated another way would be to make sure the resolution is included in the minutes. The reason it was nice to keep them separate was because a lot of the times it is all the applicant or public needs. Director of Planning Kanter stated he would not be present for the July 7, 1998, meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would also not be present for the July 7, 1998, meeting. Attorney Barney asked if anyone else was not going to be present on July 7, 19980 Director of Planning Kanter stated the Codes and Ordinances meeting was changed from June 17, 1998, to June 24, 19988 AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the June 16, 1998, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:19 p.m. Prepared by: Carrie L. Coates, Planrdng Board Minutes Page 31 June 16, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes Secretary Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesdav, June 16. 1998 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Tullson Subdivision, 1305 East State Street. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1 +/- acre of land from a parcel at 1305 East State Street, which straddles the City /Town boundary; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.58 -1 -1; Residence District R -15 and Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District. The parcel is to be acquired by the City of Ithaca and consolidated with City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 111 -9 -9, for incorporation into the city's existing Six Mile Creek holdings, as part of the ongoing alienation of parkland on the Inlet Island. Elaine Tullson, Owner /Applicant; True, Walsh, and Miller, LLP, Agent. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final 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 respectively, including parking, landscaping and other site improvements, to be located on an 8.24 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2, consisting of a total of 133.76 +/- acres, at the intersection of N`t'S Rte. 96 /Trumansburg Road and Bundy Road, Residence District R -15 and Special Land Use District (SLUD). Richard and Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer Development Company, LLC, Applicant; Michael J. Villa, Agent. 8:45 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposal to convert the Biggs "A" Building (formerly the Tompkins County Hospital) into an 81 unit apartment facility, with support services, for low - income senior citizens. The development will involve substantial alterations to the existing building, including demolition of certain portions of the structure. Improvements are also proposed for the surrounding grounds, including an upgrade of the existing parking area, increased handicapped accessibility, and landscape enhancements. A proposed Phase 11 of the project will be contingent upon market conditions, but could result in 40 additional apartment units and /or support facilities. Phase II would encompass the northernmost wing of the existing building and the portion of the structure which is currently occupied by the State Police. The proposed project is located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive, Tax Parcel No. 24 -3- 2.22, Special Land Use District No. 3. Conifer Realty Corporation, Applicant; Daniel Glasow, AIA. and Ann McCormick, Esq., Agents. 6. Approval of Minutes: (To be determined) 7. Other Business. 8. Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -17470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Karen M. Van Etten sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street. Ithaca, New York. on Tuesday. June 16 1998 commencing at 7:30 P.M., as per attached Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board, Front Entrance of Town Hall. Date of Posting Date of Publication: June 8, 1998 June 10. 1998 cv&n-m V60 7 Karen M. Van Etten, Secretary Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 16th day of 3 v...fN v.' 1998. 'LL t Public. Mary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga cou y 'Py commission Expires s� a TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, June 16, 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, June 16, 1998, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 1 +/- acre of land from a parcel at 1305 East State Street, which straddles the City /Town boundary; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.58 -1 -1; Residence District R -15 and Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District. The parcel is to be acquired by the City of Ithaca and consolidated with City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 111 -9 -9, for incorporation into the city's existing Six Mile Creek holdings, as part of the ongoing alienation of parkland on the Inlet Island. Elaine Tullson, Owner /Applicant; True, Walsh, and Miller, LLP, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final 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 respectively, including parking, landscaping and other site improvements, to be located on an 8.24 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2, consisting of a total of 133.76 +/- acres, at the intersection of NYS Rte. 96 /Trumansburg Road and Bundy Road, Residence District R -15 and Special Land Use District (SLUD) . Richard and Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer Development Company, LLC, Applicant; Michael J. Villa, Agent, Said Planning Board will a support of such matters or or in person. Individuals other special needs, will request. Persons desiring 48 hours prior to the time t said times and said place hear all persons in objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent with visual impairments, hearing impairments or be provided with assistance as necessary, upon assistance must make such a request not less than of the public hearings. Jonathan Director 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, June 8, 1998 Publish: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 Kanter, AICP of Planning ijLB als 1 Creek Valley Conservation District. The parcel is to be acquired by the City of Ithaca and consolidated with City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 111 -9 -9 for, incorporation into the citys existing Six Mile Creek holdings, as part of the ongoing alienation of parkland on the Inlet Island. Elain Tullson, Owner/ Applicant; True, Walsh, and Miller, LLP, A ent. 8:00 P.M. C9onsideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final 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 Cotta e respectively, including parr! ing, landscaping and other site improvements, to be lo- cated on an 8.24 ± acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1- 11.2', consisting of a total 'of 133.76 ± acres, at the inter- section of NYS Rte. 96/ Trumansburg Road and Bundy Road, Residence Dis- trict R -15 and Sppecial Land Use District (SIUD). Richard and Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer Development Com- pany LLC, Appplicant; Mi- chae( J. Villa,'Agent. 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. Jonatpion Kanter, AICP Director of Planning June 10, 1998 .273 1747 s TOWN OF 17MACA 1 PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, June 16, 1998 di By rection of the Chairperson of the Planning f Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, June 16, 1998, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following. times and on the following matters: 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Sub - division Approval for the pro- posed subdivision of 1 ± acre of land from a parcel at c 1305 East State Street, which straddles the City /Town boundary; Town of Ithaca Tax t Parcel No. 58.1.1 Residence I District R -15 and Six Mile ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Tullson Subdivision 1305 East State Street Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -1 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 16, 1998 MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: FILM TOWN OF ITHACA Date Clerk��� I. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 1.08 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -1, +/- 1.63 acres total area. located on the East side of the Six Mile Creek watershed, at 1305 East State Street. for conveyance to the Citv of Ithaca for use as substitute public park land, Residence District R -15 and CD- Conservation District. Elaine Tullson, Owner; True, Walsh. and Miller, LLP, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on June 16, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a plat entitled "Subdivision N1ap Showing Lands to be Acquired by the City of Ithaca from Elaine Tullson, Six Mile Creek Watershed, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated June 12, 1997, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously Karen M. Van Ette Date i, Secretary, Town of Ithaca. F, 0 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Tullson Subdivision 130 East State Street Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -1 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 16, 1998 MOTION by Lawrence Thayer, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final 1.08 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 at 1305 East State Street, for convevance to the Cite District R -15 and CD- Conservation District. Elaine T Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- . located on the East side of the Six Mile Creek watershed, of Ithaca for use as substitute public park land, Residence ullson, Owner; True. Walsh, and Miller, LLP, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on June 16, 1998, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing helc entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands to Creek Watershed, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins Engineers and Surveyors, dated June 12, 1997 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. on June 16, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat be Acquired by the City of Ithaca from Elaine Tullson, Six Mile County, New York, " prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P.C., and other application materials, 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of +/- 1.08 acres of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -1, located at 1305 East State Street, as shown on the plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands to be Acquired by the City of Ithaca from Elaine Tullson, Six Mile Creek Watershed, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County. New York, " prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors, dated June 12, 1997, subject to the following conditions: -i ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Tullson Subdivision 1305 East State Street Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -1 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 16, 19982 a. within six months of this approval, conveyance of the +/- 1.08 acre parcel, as shown on the Final Plat for the Tullson 2 -Lot Subdivision, to the City of Ithaca: and the submission of a copy of the deed for such conveyance to the Town Planning Department. b. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the conveyed +/- 1.08 acre parcel. with Tax Parcel No. 55 -1-1; and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for consolidation of said parcel with Tax Parcel No. 55 -1 -1, C. the submission for review and approval by the Town Attorney, prior to restriction indicating that the 0.33 + /- acre portion of Tax Parcel 58 -1 -1 shall not be considered a separate lot for sale or building purposes, and takes place upon said parcel, other than buildings or structures accessoi of Tullson located in the City, which deed restriction shall be recorded office within six months of this approval, the signing of the plat of a deed remaining in the Town of Ithaca that no further development y to uses on the remaining lands in the Tompkins County Clerk's d. the receipt of any required or necessary approvals by the relevant City of Ithaca agencies, e. submission to and approval by the Town Attorney prior to signing the plat, of evidence demonstrating there is access to the parcel (Town of Ithaca parcel 55 -1 -1) with which the 1.08± parcel is to be consolidated. f. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation or payment of a fee in lieu of such land dedication, having determined from the materials presented, that a proper case does not exist for requiring that a park or parks be suitably located as part of the proposed plat; and that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Ainslie, Bell, Kenerson. NAYS - None. The MOT\IrO,N was decllared to be carrriiedunanimously. qi.rx- f / <:�- Karen M. Van Ettep, Secretary, Town of Ithaca. Date (2) Date A_ TjcLz vi, S =C'?'ION 36& SiTir.DI?TS'ON PLAT EC MIST ril'L:ybc U' Stp"1 P?Ou =CT N"uRVSE oZ- W WA_VE) N/A = NOT PL:32LICA3:.E CCND CON0 =T7ON OF A_=° CV: ?- t 7 -a bi• -moo D� ,.: Q - be T'= items I_szed be_ow, u_ -- ss wa_-r - -- - an_____c ca mus _ filed in the oL =ice O` t == TCwn p -= aria= Cr Tcw:= P_a__ er's des =c -ee before a a��:icat�cn for a : = = -- s��d_ r_s_� = a_ _ = =r3 -- is Complete . These materials s :all be f i? ed w'_C h at least V t1air.y (3 0' calendar Lays prior to the P_a== _ nc Eea= me =c_ cat which o r °-- -n_na_ 1 approval , s r=cti:est_d . }� v � - 20 One Development Review EsCrCw Acre_me_ ^_t and Sack -up Withr_oldi .c Fcrm (? = r =_cu =red} . . 3, Payment of review fees, s� Deposit of escrow. - Cne fully ccmple`ed and sic-e d Shcr= Env_rer_mental Assessment Form Part I (Sc = } , or Ler_c E nviror_mental AssessmenC corm, Part I (L?} - (See Tcwr_ Pla=ner as to which •u to srm_t . ) Estimate of costs of Site imp=veme_ its (excludiric COSt Of l3i'n= acquisi ti or and prC= essier_al fees) to be pre_ ared (pr..er3bly} by a licensed pro) ssior_al enci neer. Four full size reduced copies reduced copies following info dark -line Prints of of all sheets of the to be no la=cer than rmaticr_. the preliminary plat and 25 Pr I Im_nary plat (` n2 11" by 17 ") with the a. Vic.nity Map show =r+c the caneral lecaticr_ o= the / property, 1" =1000' cr b. V Gzneral layout, ir_cluc_ ^c Ict lines W` th dime _sicns; block and IcC num✓ers; h_c wav and allev lines, w_.:n 60 feeC wide h_c wa, r =gh=s -o= -way; areas to be reserved f::r use In C^mmOr_ blr residents C= the 5 ?�di- vision; Si._S fr^r nC ^=.Side ntla_, nCn-pu.^.__c uses; a=seMent.= f':r u_i1 i ti es, d=ainace, cr c. =er pu=p cses; and �,u_Id_nc se_,Za_k lines, w:t: ^_ d::nersior_s . C. --tom— GeTer3l l3vOL'`_ O th° pr�pCSed I'_.0 :Ja•IS, b_CCitS, and lOtS W:CP_n t ne prC�CSed S ::d; "t_S_C:_. Te::C3_.v_ h;Chway names. P_elimisarr subdivisiea P? at Clec3k? ist 2 d. _ contour irater-rals, -tc GSGS da=un, o= not more t a: tWc feet wh t 1ae s1 c: e is less cnan `_cur perce c and tcc more taa five fee= W "e : s_Cpe is c_ea =er t f;.ur percent. e. Cultura: f °_a a.d = mr; °_dIat°_ly_ ad' ac° :_ to t�±e Im'vVeMer =8, bri c 1_._es _ pTpelites, pc`Wer tra: sr:_gs_or ?__ ^_ == et er s- _-_ =ica :t /. scructures, f. V Ot er sicr__`_ca =:t s ==- 'c =u = =s W_ = - - -- ant imred_ac =_:r ' adjacent t.. th ..,ACS SL.,. ,._7is_.. P_, l._C1uG_ _C pa= 'Cs, wetlar_ds, cr_t_ca_ a .v= rcnreentai areas, and ct er n s ificant features. c Direction c= f_ow c= all wale: C:,urses. calc•ll_=ien c= draitage area a av= pcinc or e ^tr;r for eazcmin water sours= e _teritc cr aCUt_inc the t =act. �1. Location ani a descr:: t_^,n C= all secCicr: line CO r'1 °rS and COVe_'- nItlent Su'_ --veV T'iC uilenCS In or near tie SUCCLViSIcn, r to at least c e c= w1aiMCM90,11 the si alolisior_ shall be re =ereriCeC by tr! T °_ CcurSes anC d_Cta'CeS. 1. -'�Y / /t �oCat?on, r1aIi.e, a :C G=_me _sicns CL eaC e:tiS�? C r =� =Wa'r --T— and alley a.-id eaC^ utllitV, d= 3_*:aC2, Or Si?L111a= ease ce :t Withlzri, abutti C, cr in tie imm..e�._3` -e v_ci_I_tV c the propbsEei d subdivision. Natural features w_�__r and Imrie'?i3telV uz.G'jac°a to tc °_ proposed Subd_'r =Sion, i :Crud_ .0 d=3: aC` Ci.'c.-- ' - == -5, hcdies of water, wccd_d areas, a: other s_cr-= =icatt f= at'lres. Idettif icaticr c areas SI.Lnj ecc to f Iccd_ng as indicated of I= Flood Bcunda= r ma: s, we tlands Macs.* k. Width at bulls.tc lire c= lots located on a cur-re or having r_or_ / Flan"ij4 IC $Caro . I. y Names and adGa?Ss?S C= cw= -erg C' = proposed M, Names of recur dead s'.:^d_v_C_crg abut =? �C t e przCcsed subdivision_. 11. Restrfictive C Cve- ... �a J if a= Y - o. . {,.r map, WL:e:'_ CIICr° L C =e Si °e_ IS re�iireC t^ p=eser�_ Dl3C. Prel i; 3ar v aGs or ? t 3 o0w p. Name e- subc_-r_s:er, w h_c._ s�.a? ? act cup ? ica =e the name cf a in the cc=-r. e• Name c= p? a__ a a.c =_ = =ct c' ee_ e e^ -, la .c r. V Name (s) a.G acc_ess (es. o= the cfwne_ (s` . s. V Name s) a: c ad. �ess (mss, c= t e s ::c_tr__ == ;s: _= t e s'bd_'T:d °: (S) iS 'are) :.CC the c'ai- °= �s, ._ t. Mac Scale i^ ba= f0=1 (" =5]' c= rz u. V Da=e of plat, a.0 a..: a:: __c3h -° = ='r -= -cam a =- == V* Names of town, ccL:Tt_r, a stage. r �^ { �ng two »r n r-� 40`9 o °- w. Bode_ Ines be _c___ �___ s�_�.._, er__ z__c:: f_%,0 �._:_ I__� edge a d ene -ha? = =c h f_:.;= each o= the oche= edges; a? ? in.-Forom, aticn, including a_? s ' be w_t:,_n the bor e_ ? ; nes . signa_u_,, anG sea_S, S._a_? SECTTCN 37 . F =NA, SUHD7771 SZON PLrl'^ Cam___'- 'C3: -ITST NAME ITTM S BM:T':'EC W N a NCT �?PLIC?�LE CCND CCNL= =CN CF A? Piaal S divisioa Plat Csec.%Iist 14 • Four full copies o no larger a. C, d. j e� N size dar'c -1 ine prints of the f_na. plat and 25 r=_du--.d n =:-e, and a Mensior_s a all^eot ^o ^aa' I s�_ s o. � - -- f__. D.3= nn r�GLCe� T v (;. c..c_ s to be -- -- _ than 11" by 17 w__ h the fo_1cw_-c proper the -y, Et c; =way and a.let% boundary or r:c ._ -o: -way Imes - , s'c_cw_ nc bcundar - %, r_c:a -c f -way or ease mer_t width a. d t e and a_lev a= y other- n.crM.nL= =_or_ need =_d for 1oc3=inv such lines; utility, suvision bdi ou�cses�cf ease+- °_nts . c= mcn.Lme n__ . such :i_Cn'rlay ce S anC_e C_ G°___? =__^,' _:°__ __ne5, _cw_= shall be anc.es c= intersect_cn, rac:_, ? enc =: s c` ta= c °n =s = nd easement w thin, arcs, and degree c= cu=- rata==., w_ =h basis c= c•u=- c in the k. Accurate data Lencths and -d_st =ices s .a.l be C the r_ea= est . be are _r�ct'^ = a= c -' s -s half minute. ViCi &ichwa,r names . Location, a ne be to n =:-e, and a Mensior_s C= eac e:<istinv in the proper the -y, subdivide_(_$ and ccvernment s::_ rev -monuments iz h_a,nwav t e and a_lev and eac:-± utility, suvision bdi d_ =._nave, c= mcn.Lme n__ . such as easements shall be re=e_e__ ^iced by true Simila. easement w thin, abutti W! c, c in the k. Accurate outlines and descriptions off any areas tc be ViCi d_TTiS:an. for pub:_c use wit_ ^_ the Cur_:,cses Exact boundary lines of the tract, izd_ca_ed blr heavy 11ne, c_tr =nc the dimensions to the nearest c hundred fact, ancles to the nearest or_e -half m_nutW and at least one . beari nc; the traverse shall balanced and closed with an error of closure net a ne be to exceed one to two be noted. thousand; the type of closer_ s ha.I Carers LCcatiO. and description of all Section line Carers address in the proper the -y, subdivide_(_$ and ccvernment s::_ rev -monuments iz or near t e subdivision, to a= least one of which the suvision bdi mcn.Lme n__ . such as easements shall be re=e_e__ ^iced by true courses and distan.ces, k. Accurate outlines and descriptions off any areas tc be C. Location areas in includinc h. Name and of property by fecal description, includinc acres or sc_-ua=e fees. Source o= ti =1�, deed record bock and pace numbers. O_ all Owners c_ name and address in the proper the -y, subdivide_(_$ :s o= a.I oersons who have an i O_ all Owners c_ the ✓ AccL'ra�we`Ic`c3__c Cf the subdivide_(_$ :s o= a.I oersons who have an i nteres= mcn.Lme n__ . such as easements or r�chts- c_ -w =y. k. Accurate outlines and descriptions off Name(s) an_ adds_ss(es) ✓ AccL'ra�we`Ic`c3__c Cf the subdivide_(_$ :s i= the mcn.Lme n__ . k. Accurate outlines and descriptions off any areas tc be ✓ AccL'ra�we`Ic`c3__c ar_c a_i :s mcn.Lme n__ . k. Accurate outlines and descriptions off any areas tc be dec_cated or roses -wed for pub:_c use or accu_s:=lcr wit_ ^_ the Cur_:,cses indicated the=ecr_; anv areas t b.e r..se_T_d cl d___ c_, ant ft= c:;mmcr_ us== c= a_ property owners in the subd_s:s_or.. I Bu_Ic_rc setbac'c lines w__n d_Menc_ons . . Final Subdivision lat Checklist 3 cc lines, fu? I dime._ ^_sior_ed wicla ler_c`hs to M . L Y te r_e =rest Cne- T.:n..r °_dt:I tccc a C a.cles Or- bear_ncs t.^. / t e nearest cr_e - ^a'_. - n. W_cch at builc_.c I_-_ c° ices Iocace_ or_ a cu= re Cr hay :�c ncn- cara_l °-'_ Side l= eS wine .n r °f".1_re^ by t.e PIa.-� i .c Bcar� o. Names and addresses e= clwners c a :I pa=ces ab l = =inc p. Names o= reccr-4_d subc_-r_s_ ens abut =inc c p= cpcs_c Su :c= -ris:c c Tie biccks are _ -��=e Ccr_se_�= _-re_y t =rOLC ^cut t= S c_J :S_Or_ and t ;.e :.Z.cs ar. nu = =.ea c:;nSZCUC- 'r.__r t rcLC cu= eac b =cc's. K °y map Wn °_' IM r e ITS present p'_at. S, ` V ? C =n= _J mG� S .CAN_ O_ 1 __ prcper�y, 1 " -' OQC ` cr t. Name o= subs= v_s_cr_, w ^_c, s hall. act dupl_cate t e A name o ` an_r c t = == sl_bdivis ion in t, zle county . u. �V Nane ar_c seai e= t r_�ist_re_ Ianc surveyor Cr encineer who prepared the tcpcc_apr_ic Infcrmatic.. J / Date of survey. V. V Name and sea= Ia _c 51, Te Or W'1O macs t == Y / bcUncary survellr. Date of survey. W. V Name (s) anc acc=ess (es) C= the owr_er(s! x. V Map Scale (1" = =O' Cr I"=100' in Bar Form. and PCint. y. Date of plat a.,.(= any a c icab'_e revision dates . z . Name of town, county a.d scare . a_. Border lines bcu.d_rc t:.e s :_e == c e _.c h : =c;. t Ie== edge. and cne -;_al _ inc from eaclol CZ t e ec edces ; all i n`c =.:a =? or_, inCluc_nc all p' a= line=, let =eri ^c, sec- a =�res, a-d sea'_s, sl.all be W:`b_n t e borer lies. molt -C_L'g Y °_�- =----r °- cov= __---� won* �1 C_reCZ: tfle land ? n t S.,:C.'r__ One oricina_ er my:ar cop_r c= the pla= to be recorded ar_c t:.re_ =ar'.c - C °_sL;. a-n? Bca_c to c.ne e===.cc thac the Fi=al Subdivision Plat Check? ist 4 SECTION 38, I1*SPRCVM mI' PLANS A��iD R LA = INFOMMATION 1. Where improvements are r' .fired for a propcsed subc_.v'_s_cr_, the follcw_ ng dccuments sh al1 be s:r.:m_c_ed the P_a- mmi__�c De_ ar_m _ sa n_ta= r sewers and" socrm Iocat:.or_s and descr__ _ _:, nc c= c_: mss, man : c:es, ar_d other facilities . 4 xl A R_chway cav;nc n? ans and s.e__= _ca=_c.-.. The estimated C%a � C= . Grading and f_Ilit*c Culverts, swales and czn °_r s=zr l r Sanita="r sewers, Water lines, valves and" fire by ^rants, Paving, curbs, cutters and sideways, Any other improvements r =_^._red by Tcw- o= Ithac Su�^d_vis_cn Reculatior_s . The plan and profile subdivision, wi *_h grade horizontal, and i" = 5' sheets. Profiles shal highway or alley along i r the sidewalks, if any. 11 F:lerame: FS�i:.3 •r.r.�C: of each procesed highway in to cate d, drawm to a scale of I" = 50' ver =ica' , on standard plan and z�rof_le - _ s=ew accurate'v the croiile of the he highway center line and lccati on c= Detailed c ccnstruc = =', y n p p -an s and spec_= :cat_or_s fcrwater l line i ncluc_ ng I Icca�_cns a and" cescr__ c c_ors c. mans, va_-r_s, r r_.rcra = = =s ao curt enances, e e . D_ld r r_ s o _ _u ccicr_ a and s-ec_ 4 xl A R_chway cav;nc n? ans and s.e__= _ca=_c.-.. The estimated C%a � C= . Grading and f_Ilit*c Culverts, swales and czn °_r s=zr l r Sanita="r sewers, Water lines, valves and" fire by ^rants, Paving, curbs, cutters and sideways, Any other improvements r =_^._red by Tcw- o= Ithac Su�^d_vis_cn Reculatior_s . The plan and profile subdivision, wi *_h grade horizontal, and i" = 5' sheets. Profiles shal highway or alley along i r the sidewalks, if any. 11 F:lerame: FS�i:.3 •r.r.�C: of each procesed highway in to cate d, drawm to a scale of I" = 50' ver =ica' , on standard plan and z�rof_le - _ s=ew accurate'v the croiile of the he highway center line and lccati on c= ADOPTED RESOLUTION Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage (formerly Woven Hearts) 1138 Trumansburg Road Final Site Plan Approval, Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, .June 16, 1998 F` MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: TOWN Cf 1THACA C'WX J� r 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Final Subdivision Approval and Final 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 respectively, including parking, landscaping and other site improvements. to be located on an 8.24 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2, consisting of a total of 133.76 +/- acres. at the intersection of NYS Rte. 96 /Trumansburg Road and Bundy Road, Residence District R- 15 and Special Land Use District (SLUD). Richard and Mary Perry, Owners; Pioneer Development Company. LLC, Applicant; Michael J. Villa, Agent. 2. The proposed rezoning. Site Plan and Subdivision Approval are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review 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 3. The Planning Board acting as Lead Agencv, 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), including a photographic visual analysis, all of which are incorporated into the EAF, and 4. Based on the above, the Planning environmental significance with Approval, and 5. The Planning Board, after holdin Board. at its April 21, 1998 meeting, issued a negative determination of regard to the proposed rezoning. Site Plan Approval and Subdivision g a Public Hearing May 5. 1998, and after reviewing and accepting as adequate preliminary plans for Sterling House of Ithaca and Woven Hearts. entitled "SK -2 Preliminary Subdivision Plat," dated 3/9/98, "SK -3 Site Plan." dated 3/9/98. "SK -4 Site Section," dated 3/9/98, "C -1 Drainage & Erosion Control Plan." dated ADOPTED RESOLUTION Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage (formerly Woven Hearts) 1138 Trumansburg Road Final Site Plan approval, Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 16, 1998 3/19/982 "C -2 Utility Plan," dated 3/19/98."C-3 Details." dated 3 /19/98. '`C -4 Details.' dated 3/19/98, "L- 1 Grading Plan," dated 3/19/98. "L -2 Landscape Plan," dated 3/19/98, "L -3 Site Details." dated 3/19/98, "Wovenhearts 36 Bed Memory Care" (building elevations), dated 3/17/98. "A -5 Sterling House Building Elevations," dated 3 /6/98, additional materials included in the '`Design Review Application - Woven Hearts & Sterling House of Ithaca.' dated April 21. 1998. and other application materials. has granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval and has issued an affirmative recommendation to the Town Board to rezone the above - referenced 8.24 +/- acre parcel from R -15 Residence to Special Land Use District (SLUD), and 6. The Town Board, after holding a Public Hearing on June 8. 1998, has enacted a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to provide a Special Land Use District for the Sterling House Assisted Living Unit and the Sterling Cottage Dementia Unit, for the 8.24 +/- acre project site on a portion of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2 at the intersection of Bundy Road and Trumansburg Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2, into five lots. including Proposed Parcel A consisting of 4.24 +/- acres, Proposed Parcel B consisting of 3.995 +/- acres. "Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes" consisting of 12.8 +/- acres, "Proposed Tot Lot" consisting of 1.389 +/- acres, and the remaining portion of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -11.2 (Area Remainder of Farm) consisting of 119.966 +/- acres, as shown on the Final Subdivision Plat entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of. ' Richard A. and Mary Louise Perry, Bundy Road and N.Y.S. Route 96, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," and subtitled "Sterling House and Sterling Cottage of Ithaca." dated 5/19/98, revised 6/11/98, prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, L.S., T.G. Miller. P.C., conditioned upon the following: a. Conveyance to the Town of Ithaca of the "Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes" and the "Proposed Tot Lot," together with the pedestrian rights -of -way from Perry Lane and Joseph Place shown on the plat in fee simple to provide access to the Tot Lot, within three months of the issuance of the first building permit on anv lot and in anv event prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy; and b. Conveyance to the Town of easements for access from Bundy Road to the "Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes through "Riley Drive" and the "temporary easement for park access ...'' as shown on the final plat in form and substance satisfactory to the Attornev for the Town. within three months of the issuance of the first building permit on any lot and in any event. prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy: and ADOPTED RESOLUTION Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage (formerly Woven Hearts) 1138 Trumansburg Road Final Site Plan Approval, Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 16, 1998 C. Review and approval by the Attorney for the Town of the exhibits to the draft Reciprocal Easement Agreement relating to easements necessary to ensure ingress and egress, between Proposed Parcels A and B. over the driveways and parking lots. and easements between Parcels A and B for utility lines and drainage facilities, including storm drains and detention basin. to ensure that future owners of both parcels have full rights to use all of the above - mentioned facilities. and proof of recording the Reciprocal Easement Agreement and exhibits as so finally approved, prior to issuance of any building permits: and d. Before construction of any improvements anywhere on the Sterling House and Sterling Cottage of Ithaca project site is commenced, requirements of the Final Site Plan Checklist shall be met: and e. Signing of one original or mylar copy and three dark -line prints of the final plat by the Planning Board Chair, said plat to be filed in the County Clerk's Office, and a receipt of filing provided to the Town Planning Department, prior to issuance of any building permits; and 2. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the parkland dedications shown on the final plat, consisting of the " Proposed Parcel to be Conveyed to the Town of Ithaca for Park Purposes" to with the "Proposed Tot Lot" that was to be dedicated to the Town in conjunction with previous subdivision of the Perry parcel, shall fulfill the parkland reservation requirements of the entire remaining lands in the original 133.76 +/- acre parcel which is the subject of this final subdivision approval. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage development to consist 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), including parking, landscaping and other site improvements, as shown on final plans for Sterling Cottage and Sterling House of Ithaca. entitled "SK -2 Preliminary Subdivision Plat," dated 3/9/98, "C -1 Drainage & Erosion Control Plan.'' dated 5/15/98. "C -2 Utility Plan," dated 5/15/98. "C -3 Details," dated 5/15/98, "C -4 Details." dated 5/15/98. "C -5 Detention Basin Plan & Details," dated 5/18/98, "L -1 Grading Plan." dated 5/15/98 "L -2 Landscape and Sign Plan," dated 5/15/981 "L -3 Site Details." dated 5/15/98. 41-4 Site Details." dated 5/15/98. '`L -5 Site Details." dated 5/15/98, A2.0 Sterling Cottages (building elevations), dated 4/6/98. '`A -5 Sterling House ADOPTED RESOLUTION Sterling House of Ithaca & Sterling Cottage (formerly Woven Hearts) 1138 Trumansburg Road Final Site Plan Approval, Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board, June 16, 1998 Building Elevations." dated 3 /6/98, additional materials included in the "Design Review Application - Sterling Cottage & Sterling House of Ithaca. Final Site Plan Review May 15, 1998, and other application materials, conditioned upon the following: a. Inclusion of final details of size, type, design, and intensity of all proposed lighting on a site plan detail sheet, prior to issuance of any building permits, to include frosted glass on fixtures for exterior architectural lighting as discussed at this meeting: and b. Provision of a copy of DOT Highway work permit prior to issuance of any building permits and copies of all other necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy; 2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the Sterling House and Sterling Cottage of Ithaca development from 52 spaces to 41, as authorized in the local law providing for Special Land Use District No. 10, subject to the right of the Town, pursuant to the referenced provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, to require additional spaces if the reduced number of parking spaces is found by the Planning Board to be inadequate. Aye - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Bell, Ainslie, Thaver. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Karen M. Van Etten, Secretary, Town of Ithaca. Date: 4 Mary` Bryan Date: Secretary. = IT °_2? S TSM!"rT =D W = WA V =D N/A = NC A.?P�,C�� =.D corm = CCrrL _C7cN CF �= I IY R = C � CT N'C mS 1 _ y La The items lister below, u^_ess w=•_': _c ^_r the P_arr_rc Scar_, r uS= be In t:7 °_ an applicatI'cn .z. a r_aal su:c_-r_S_z, a.przva= is deemed com =_ =e. T It es _ materia_s s ha.1 be_1ec a= l ems= b:i �. =° Scar3 meet_nc at which pre __L_ .a.-% is . ... 1 Comp' et °d ar_c s_ged Deve= opmert Re =r_e,� Appli catic- . 2. crzw Acr==m=nz arc backu^ with_ o_c_rc :crm a-v, to t e e ='ect t ha= h e cor_ser =s to , 3. Payment of review =ees . 4• Depcsit C= escrow. arc the ded_catier_s 5 Iz because nct s'.v mit:ed w- 1 reli r- _ r _.. p_ m =na__r p_a� a: p o ra_ =ions s he w-i on c= re °e =red tc _t:- or substa= tial mcc__'_ca =_�rS h ve CCcu_red S_ncc? Dr =_? _mina^'j Plat: approval, c e `�? ? y com_ T_eted a. c s:c =_� S�-±cr= Env_ronrnenta! Assess-ment Pormt Part I (4Z or Lorc En vironme,ta rt I (_ -�� (Se= cw - P ;< as to which to st:_^.m =t . ) / 6 • V Owner's Ceti =icate . A ce=ti =_ca =e s_(7M= by the crwre_ (s) to the e__ect that he /`:rev ow^ t,e 1a ^C that he causal t,e 1a_ ^_G t0 Cc��__ =v -- _' Le_ _ =_ -` := a_ =cv__ c= the be surveyed and divided, a c that he makes the cedicatior_s °er _es indicated or. the plaz / . 70 V l_� �. i a,_i r Y�e • .A C.° i• -^F�l. =T ��. ' tin SL_ re: or s C �_ s_c�__d a nd se�__-. a� a _ ___i_...._ sewage r =c_stered Ianc su= ve:r ^= to he e = =e =z that (i) tZe pl_= represents a su= r=.% mace b1r 'r__m, (_) t: =e plat is a correct recreseataticn of a_1 ex =er1.or zcurcaries c_ the la d su:--v_vec ar_c the suhd,vis_c:_ c= i =, (3) all r cru.:,e_ ^its inc_ca =ed or. t =�e plat actua'_1v e.ci == a -c their ?oca_?or :, s_z� a.�c mate = -a_ ar= correctly srOwn, a. C_ t r °: ulat? ^.r5 :reSc ar f+ New York State ? J S-__ have bee- comp? iee w: q e J S Ce r °_ 1..a__ ^ed a=!C Sc �_••_� b:i �. =° 1.1C . ... .. .�_ri �c:C:' mcr =cacor (S) i= a-v, to t e e ='ect t ha= h e cor_ser =s to , arc the ded_catier_s a-c res =r_c =ions s he w-i on c= re °e =red tc o- the plat Twc cc_ of the Cc��__ =v -- _' Le_ _ =_ -` := a_ =cv__ c= the wa = °er _es -_•- = su ".clv and /or sewage syszem. Final. Subdirision Plat C�'hec?cl ist 2 10 Fcu= full size car'.t -line prints of the final plat and 25 r=educed CCD_ 4es CL all sn°_°_ =S C- t : °_ L�_ ^.3_ D_a� ( =fie r�C':Ce^_ C :C = °_S to �e ao Ia�c /er t__ ^.an 1=" by 17" w.th the fc- lcw_nc i nfcr-za =ion . a. V "way and a..1 e bcun Cara Cr r:c:�t- o = -wal I =nes r + shcw_: c bcunca= %, r_ca -c f -way or easemz en t wed` and any C= e= in =orm_t_cn ne3c_c fcr Iccati_ ^_c such Iines; cu =cses` cf eas =_rents . =c`N =n S a'S -e c _ ce `= °- _ _ v _ anc:es c= i nt_rse_t_ .__, ra�__, Ie-c .s C= Ca. =e n_S n h- ares, anc with basis c= cu= r` data. Lenct hs and -c_stances shill be to the r_earest one h�_drect h ==ct. A= -c -es s a =? be t A half minute. c . / �/ A F�=chwa_r names . d. LCcat_Cr_, a a-e, and d_iic1 nS_C?:S C= eaC h e:Ci =t_nC hi c; Fi=al Subdivision Plat Checklist 3 M, Let Imes, zul I v c_mea_or_ed, wit _ ier.cths to t e nea=es- cre- =edt = f'oct and a= Sle= cr Cne -ha =` -,u = °- n. N W_ct h at bu_'_d_nc l_ne c` Ie_s loca =ed cr_ a cu_ re c= lines, wr ired by tae / Plar�-zi.nc Bcarc. o. V Names ar_c 4ddresses C= cwr_e_s c= all pa =els ayu = _ ,_ the Cr =CCU s_.d_-, -_s ten. / - p. J Names o a�Lc p_pcs= d too, C PVT The b?cckts a= °_ ._�.. :°_ = °_^� CCij�= 'i °__V t� =CL_ :Cu� t __ to Su�t_'I_a_Cn a nC C,:e 1CC.S a == P_LTmc� ~ °^- C :i_ScC : =_Tre 't =C. CK . KeV map, w c_= t an or_= saee= is rec-'�i = °_d tc ob present p.a_. S. V V _C_ ^_L r lriG� _��A%_n� t C. �'1 ?�S� T ^ e 1. too lGCa otO procerzy, I " =1Qv0` o= 1 ZOQa'. t. Name Of Su C_'i_s_Cn, wh_Ch s, o,t nCt CL'Dl_Cate tie name cf an_t CC _er subdivIS_Cr_ 1.1 the COun %..V. U. /V Name and sea_ cf t re�T scered Land su= seyor Cr engineer w c pr =_a =ed the tcpccraphic information_. / Date of Su= -ve:r. tot I V* V Name alert Sea. c= r�c_stered land Surveyor who made t^ / boundary sur -Te.r. Dat-2 OL pot S=,rey. w. V Name (s) and ad=r_ss (es) c_ t e owner( s) X, V Map Scale (? " =5'7' C. 1"=I001) is Bar roe :7 a G n0?'__'1 / point. y. V Date of plat a= d a_ v a d tim, b' e re-rision cafes . Z, ✓ Name c tow-, county and s_a =_. a_ ✓ Border lines bcu :oo*= t e sheen on= inch _r�m t == oto _, too Ie == etc= and c -:_al= inch =_om eac c= t == c_ , a. e ces; alI ? CI Z' ne =, letCSrinC S_C'a =�reS ant S °='_S Shah bz /� LiCrC�r lines . to irC1 „d_rc r °_= —=— =- -r °— = ov�._a._=s 'N ^ - - =z c- 'r ° - == ✓ eC= to tf toil `` file anG '--- t :c CZ `� one Or1C -n a. C= mo /_a= CCC't C: Cne ! a= CC be to to -_ p a. d M /1 Y _ . w` Y 11 CO/VD, Cer__c- Ca_?Gr_ s_C'ie^_ .^`; C: °_ C:!.:_=an Cr ct_^_er C°_s_�naCe�' tot, Off_Cia� Cr aCZ':C C. t _ : _a °.- -C ?Ca t'C C;.e e__ °_CC t_'Ia= C Z Final Subdivision Plat Checklist each proposed h4 chway g the find= Cat_d, drawr_ to a scale SECTION 3 8, 13TPRO M � _ PTA:VS ;UM RrLA= =M ORMATION I. Where improvements are r�� 'fired for a prpcsed subd_v_s_Cn the follow:nc documents shall be vertical, on standard plan to the Pla-�:inc De_ ar.ment _ a. b. c. d. e. f. 111fA Det3:led COnStrsC =1Cn p_an� a sp el_i =icat_ons for wa= =r i nclud_. c Iccac_or_s a -d descr_- =_c. -_s o. ma• s, va=-res,r_ydran =s, � ��P -_ ap_ urtenances, etc . ,�,��� ��� Deca_led cor_st �c�iC._ p p_ =___ =s, and s: ec___ca c __ fzr san.`a=y sewers and s = fac_li =ies i,c_u --- loca =ior_s a _d descri === c n- c= c_p > ma- hc'ss, and other facilities ���A,y,� czck L H'ahway p a•rina D? ans ant s=ec.= _ca =_o" The estimated cost Cf. Grading and filling, Culverts, swal es and oth °_r s Z= Sanitary sewers, Water Lines, valves a Paving, curbs, gutters Any other improvements Regulations . and s dewalks, r' -red blr Town o= Ithaca Subd= v;s_cn The plan and p ro f i l e subdivision, with grade horizontal, and l" = 5' sheets. Profiles shat highway or alley along t the sidewalks, if any." c. each proposed h4 chway in the find= Cat_d, drawr_ to a scale of I" 50' vertical, on standard plan and profile _ s new accu =ate'v the D'_O °? le o= the Ii. highway center line and location of FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST P ROj ECT NAME S�e -#-��' t�Sa S l�' 6110.42 PRC ECT NUMBER 0% 6 � _ REPARER V Qln 1�a1 tti 1 0.-(r' = ITEM SUBMITTED N/A = NOT APPLICABLE W = WAIVE COND = CONDITION OF A??ROV,;'%= 11 y Cotpleted ana signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (_= required) (Only (1) copy each.) 2. Payment of additional review fees as needed and deposited in an escrow account. 3. COOP All other items subm__ted with the preliminary site plan application with modifications made according to the approval given by the Town Planning Board. 4. COND.Record of application for and aoproval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies. Submit copies of all permits or approvals so / granted. 5• y Detailed sizinc and =ina1 material specifications of all required improvements. 61 Construction details of all proposed structures, roads, / water /sewage facili�:ies, and other improvements. 7. y One (1) Original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. PLAITMCRD\ c ?.`JA S mb /5/1 §/96 ' 't u 11 1 619°8 ,'' To: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Doria Higgins Date: June 16, 1998 Omissions and Inadeguacies of the Specifications for Monitoring for "Water Quality and System Maintenance" of the Cornell Lake Source Cooling Project (as described in the Stream Protection and State Pollutant Discharge Elimination ( SPDES) Permit No. NY 124 4741 The specifications for monitoring the Cornell Lake Source Cooling (LSC) Project for conditions related to 'Water Quality and System Maintenance" as described in the SPDES Permit are inadequate to the point of being meaningless. The intent of monitoring is presumably to identify possible harmful effects of the LSC project so that the causes of the harmful effects can be changed or stopped, and to ensure remediation (if possible) for the harm that has been done. As the permit reads now, there are no grounds in it for stopping Cornell from continuing with the project no matter what effects are observed by the community, because the limits or definitions of when the project should be stopped or changed are not defined. Below are listed just some of the concerns which even I, with no professional expertise in this area (though with training in scientific methodology in a field with variables much harder to quantify) can easily identify. How much more can a person with expertise in the area probably find fault with the SPDES permit, The extent and breadth of the permit omissions and inadequacies should make clear to you that, for the good of your constituents and of the wider lake community, you withhold monitoring specifications for the LSC project' — specifications which can identify possible changes in the lake due to the Cornell project, and the levels at which the project should be changed or shut down. Herewith, a sampling of the inadequacies of the permit, 1. No Baseline Data Required There is no requirement for the establishment of baseline data against which the effects of the variables being measured could be compared and thus reasonably evaluated. There was a mildly worded suggestion for such baseline data in the draft SPDES permit (page 6 draft permit) sent out with the bulky four - volume Draft EIS, but that suggestion was deleted from the final permit. And rewritten hopefully by an outside expert in the field. page 2, June 16 memo 2. Reasons for Sampling of Data Not Given Nor How Data to Be Used While there is a chart in the permit listing the different variables to be measured, and how often they are to be measured, and how much of a sample or how many samplings at a time should be taken and in what manner and method the samples should be collected, there are no descriptions of why those variables are to be sampled, or to what they are to be compared, or how evaluated, or what decisions are to be made on the basis of those samples. Basically the permit lists the variables to be collected, not how the data is to be used or why it is collected. 3. Specific Sites for Specific Data Collection Not Required The only description of where the sampling of the data is to be obtained is of a very large area: "The discharge location for the outfall is defined by ... all of the lake south of east — west line through McKinney's Point to the end of (Cayuga] Lake. For this reason, the permit defines the area to be monitored for ' in4ake' sampling as the same" (underline added, page 7 of permit). There are no specifications, as there should be, that sampling for effects of change of water temperature be taken both inside the outfall pipe (before the outfall water has diffused into the surround) and also at specified distances away from the outfall pipe. The permit does not describe what is to be done with the sampling of the variables obtained, nor does it give levels at which such sampling would indicate harm to the ambient temperature of the lake. According to the permit, sampling for the effect of the outfall water at the southern end of the lake could be taken a mile and a half northwest of the outfall pipe across the lake and near the town line of Ulysses, a distance large enough away from the pipe to make certain no effects could be observed or measured. 4. No Criteria or Measurement Levels by Which Data Can Be Evaluated The lack of requirement in the permit for criteria by which the measurements taken can be evaluated is perhaps the most serious lack, and one which justifies the use of the word "meaningless" in the first paragraph of this memo. Millikin Station, for instance, has an alarm system which goes off when the difference between the temperature of the intake water and the outflow water reaches 17 degrees. At that point (when the alarm goes off), the operation closes down and easily applied remedial steps are taken. The EIS for LSC estimates that the "average" difference between the intake and outflow water will be "3 to 15 degrees." The LSC "average" of "15 degrees" is just two degrees less than the 17 degrees that sets off the alarm system at Millikin Station. At what difference in temperature between intake and outfall, or between outfall and ambient water, or between baseline data and effect of LSC, should remediation measures be taken? The permit does not specify. 5. No Requirement for Winter Temperature Data Nor Criteria for Evaluation of Same While the LSC EIS states that the outfall water will be cooler in the summer than the ambient water (the water into which it is dispersed) and discusses this effect as beneficial, it does not discuss the effect of the outfall water being warmer than the ambient water in late fall, all winter, and early spring, nor are measurements of those variables specified in the permit so that comparison differences can be measured and evaluated. The 1968 pamphlet written by 17 Cornell scientists to protest the then proposed nuclear power plant (on a much, much larger scale than the LSC) wrote (describing in general the effect of page 3, June 16 memo warming the lake water in the winter): "The continued addition of heated water throughout the winter will cause 'summer' stratification to begin earlier .... Because stratification will start sooner and last longer, the lake's growing season will be extended at both ends, with a higher rate of biological production." Of course in the case of LSC these effects will only operate in the southern end of the lake, but that is still cause for concern, and the permit should require that winter temperature differences be monitored and evaluated. 6. Area Designated for Data Collection Excludes Major Areas of SRP Plumes In the Draft EIS there are five graphs, Figures 2.3.3 -8A to 2.3.3 -8E, showing "the Approximate Extent of the SRP [soluble, reactive phosphorus] Plume" in the months of June, July, August, September, October. All of those plumes extend considerably north of the line which defines the area in which sampling should be taken. The September SRP Plume, for instance, extends more than two miles north of that boundary line. There are no specs in the permit for taking samplings of these plumes outside the designated sampling area, t e • r As the permit is now written, once the project is in place and in operation there is no way the permit can be used to control or stop the operation because no levels of acceptable or unacceptable differences are specified. Please do not give your Final Site Plan approval until the DEC SPDES permit has been rewritten to give meaningful and clear and specific directions so that appropriate control can be maintained over the operation of the LSC project. A private agreement, about monitoring the LSC project, between the Town and Cornell, even though written, will not have the same legal weight and permanency and protection for your community as will an adequately written official, legal State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES permit. At this time, before granting your approval, you have considerable power to insist that appropriate steps to ensure the safety of your community be taken. Do not abdicate that power until the permit has been rewritten. G C\ \L 1 Perry Lane Ithaca, NY 14850 607 -277 -5134 Home 607 - 256 -3859 Work 607 - 273 -9312 FAX Line 6/16/98 Town of Ithaca Planning Board: Thank you for the opportunity to address this meeting concerning the consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of two buildings on the property owned by Richard and Mary Perry. As for my late entry into this subject, I wish to bring the following information forward. The first information received on this project was sent to me by the Perry's on July 14, 1997. In this letter (copy attached) the Perry's were kind enough to inform us of their plans, and went on to state that "you will be receiving notices of meetings concerning the development of the project directly from the Town of Ithaca". The only notices that I receive from the Town of Ithaca, were after my letters of March 24, 1998, to the Town Board, Building Inspector and Zoning and to Engineering and Planning. It is somewhat disconcerting as a tax payer that my questions and requests went unanswered by all who received the letters. I should point out that Larry Thayer was kind enough to call me after receipt of a copy of my letter in an attempt to let me know what was going on with the various projects. As I had been working in Schenectady, NY since January, my request to receive copies of the minutes of meetings and proposals on the project did not seem out of line. I can only assume that the reason my letters went unanswered was due to the fact that all who received them were to busy working to take the time to answer a lowly taxpayer. Having said the above, it is time to state my actual objections: I bought the lot located on 1 Perry Lane, from the Perry's and subsequently built a home on the same lot. The final decision on the purchase of the lot, was that I was also buying a view from the Perry's. I have included copies of some of the pictures taken as to what that view was. As you can see, the view is farm land, barns, somewhat of a lake view as well as a view of Cornell and Ithaca College. The Perry's request for a zoning change and construction of 2 large buildings of 28,800 and 18,800 square feet is a contradiction to the bill of goods that they sold to me and my neighbors on Perry Lane. The artist rendering that was sent (copies attached) shows a quaint unobtrusive "little building" it does not show the 14,400 and 9,400 square feet of roof that will now be my view. In the packet that I have prepared, I have drawn my own rendering of me on my property tying to look over these new views. In their letter the Perry's talk about the development of their "FARM ". It is obvious that their use of the term farm is for Tax purposes only. They state that the "rest of the farm will someday probably all be private residences of some sort, this concept would serve the greater Ithaca community as a whole." "Nliat about the concept of serving the people to whom they sold property to. The Ithaca Journal has written articles based on information received from the Town of Ithaca, with grandiose ideas of purchasing farm land at tax payers expense to avoid this from happening. I wonder just what neighborhoods are worth saving. Zoning Laws are passed to protect the value of property, you the Town of Ithaca Planning Board have an great responsibility, to develop and protect the Town. In my opinion you are attempting to develop but are not protecting. In conclusion, I assume that this is a done deal. As a taxpayer I do not feel that it is my job to have to sue to protect the value of my property and view, as did the West Hill Association. As a frugal Scotsman I assume that once the value of my property is damaged by this project, that litigation would then be in order to compensate me not only for the value of the property paid to the Perry's but in addition the price of the house built on that same property. As to the parties involved and the liabilities of this claim, I would assume that the owners, developers, and the Town that allowed this zoning change to occur would be liable. I would hope that my neighbors who have also expressed concern over this project would join me in a class action suit. I would finally suggest that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, not look at the letter head of Shalebrook Farm with a lovely picture of a cow, but look at it is Shalebrook Development, and change the dairy cow to that of a cash cow. If Shalebrook wants to develop their farm do so, do not hide behind terms of "developing the farm" and then state that it will not be a farm. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, generally speaking it is a duck. If the Town grants this zoning change, then tax the "Farm" for what it is not what it used to be. erely: David B. Cook Dear Friends and Neighbors: Shalebrook Farm Richard A. Pent 1138 Trumansburg Road ithaca,NY 14850 July 14, 1997 We are writing to inform you of the next phase in the development of our farm. When we began planning the future use of our property in 1989, we were advised that the acreage closest to Trumansburg Road might be appropriate for some form of senior living or health - related facility. We were pleased with this idea because, while the rest of the farm will someday probably all be private residences of some sort, this concept would serve the greater Ithaca community as a whole. We have recently been presented with an opportunity to realize this objective. We have entered into an agreement with Pioneer Development Company, Inc. of Syracuse for the planned construction of two single -story buildings that would accommodate a total of approximately 60 health care units. The level of care to be provided will be between independent living and nursing hone. The project will use about seven acres of our land as shown on the enclosed map. The buildings will be located on what is currently our driveway and will be oriented towards Trumansburg Road with parking provided between the buildings and the Trumansburg Road. You will be receiving notices of meetings concerning the development of the project directly from the Town of Ithaca, and you will be able to learn more about the design, landscaping, etc* at those meetings. We encourage you to attend. Also enclosed is a rendering of one of the buildings. We are excited about this project. It takes us one step further in the development of our farm, while still letting us live on the property and work the remaining land. It also provides a service to the community in what we believe will be a tastefully designed and attractive setting. We hope you will share our enthusiasm for this new endeavor. Sincerely, Enclosures t _ :.• ''()YD �Ti:n ': Z•H. ;: J. �.�•. ". mot. ..:.'•:'.., +,.� ;. ' 'tom. �.:�'�'•-:..K•�11-'Tt .• i�'�: _••._. yi '. '.. ,.; - . ti. Irr J� A ?••y ;..r arr t''� i{ �wi 'fy .L:.'1 —ij,� t I a I for . '•L � \>u ia�.,t*�Yk �y r,'Tl �i°�l�l+'+��i�'I� /gq � }f �t=.I,�...��L.L.'�___ : _... . 1 � � ._ ': � 137 N•�iy;..� .'I 3. .ay N_• .a:y' .-= '�`Kii111 a .[y�i { ��5� ,�') ` I -• R'• "< t. .' j Af Id t • •} 1y,. .M .. f'i }Pr'' IH '�•^,4••ril•�' �1 l ( I• I• _ . . Id .=:jr`S� 5.f '• �l:i`y;:1.'a!:)I �I�l�I � 1 :f!: .,�yf,..:•, "�' ire.;. e• •:J ti-:9 •t .. ya¢iT.�5'G .!I�� t.1�. _ -� .r.'�;, y}:i.. „d.._� �r Y'�. f .: _ t :IA A`t It � .. -•jk '+ ''r - '� •.rte r -�!. , .r •.Vr . -. ::fit -. ... ,. _ }} .l is ., �� •.. J;'P! w•• :`i;_ ;f.c.. rr�•' is7. k,.% .%T�•%+."T= :�ywrT�.!'�•e•r:. 'l��i.�l,l %�¢.[�..7!n. r -.r�r -. °_ r r. •'1 .. ki' _ �' ter_ - +i f•,•..•��^.��v �. - . ••'• •� t. 1. rl...', : s' •.� ;j6d 84 wr It ... �. v .1 1 Kr,,, . III _ June 15, 1998 To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Kathleen Friedrich Re: Proposed construction at intersection of NYS 96/TRUMANSBURG RD and BUNDY RD 0 My name is Kathleen Friedrich and I live at the intersection of Bundy Road and Trumansburg Road, the site of the proposed development known as Sterling House and Sterling Cottage. Although the most directly impacted resident in the area, I was not informed or aware of this proposal until I asked the engineers doing the impact study what was going on, i.e., why they were in my yard taking pictures. In fact, since a great deal of photographic documentation was taken from my yard, I have to assume that it was clear to them that my property would be affected. By that point, everything but final approval seemed to have taken place. My work schedule does not permit me to attend the June 16th hearing, but I want to express my concern about this development on three points: 1. EXCESSIVE TRAFFIC In terms of both volume and speed, the traffic on Trumansburg Road is already excessive, making a left turn very difficult at times. 'The current speed limit of 45 is seldom observed and I have never seen it enforced. It needs to be lowered. With increased traffic from this proposed development, this problem needs to be addressed. I would suggest speed limit no higher than 30 between here and the light at Cayuga Medical Center. 2. LIGHT POLLUTION I'm very concerned about too much light coming from the development's parking area. 3. VIEW OBSTRUCTION It looks as if my view of the horizon will be completely obstructed by this construction. I certainly would have reconsidered buying my property had I been aware of such a proposal. But it seems that only the concerns of the owners of the more expensive properties at the top of the hill have been taken into consideration in this regard, although they are located much farther away. Your consideration of these matters will be appreciated. Sincerely, Kathleen Friedrich 1201 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Attachment #3