Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-07-18FILE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES - JULY 18, 2006 DATE. Approved REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 189 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board, Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (8:12 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe,. Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan. Kanter, Director, of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning (7:52 p.m.); Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk: EXCUSED Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Christine Balestra,' Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner, OTHERS Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf; Adrian Williams and Mary Plowe, 108 Sapsucker Woods Rd; Robert O'Brien, HOLT Architects; Rick Couture, Ithaca College; Linna Dolph and David Dunbar, 1457 Trumansburg Rd; Margaret Rumsey, 110 E Buttermilk Falls Rd; Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way; Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn St; Bernie Carr, 21.0 Parish Ln; Scott Sutcliffe, CU Lab of Ornithology; Brian How, 109 Birchwood 'Dr; ? 311 Salem Dr; Gerald Davis, 309 Salem Dr; David Collum, 1436 Hanshaw Rd; Eileen Gravani, 203 Salem Dr; Mary ? 108 Sapsucker Woods Rd; Stephan Wagner,. 112 Sapsucker Woods Rd. CALL TO. ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:02 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 10, 2006 and July 12, 2006, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins. County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on July 12, 200.61 . Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New,York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson. Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved SKETCH PLAN Review of a sketch plan for the proposed Ithaca Colle9e Gateway. Building located on the Ithaca College campus north of Dillingham Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is for a new 4- level, +/- 50,500 gross square foot building for the Office of Admissions, the Office of Human Resources and the college's executive offices. The project will also include new stormwater . facilities, lighting, . landscaping, and changes to the adjacent parking area and walkways. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicants Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf,. LP, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — My apologies for the last meeting. We were unable to get to you. appreciate your patience and I thank you for coming back this evening. That is why we put you on first. The floor is Mr. Trowbridge or Mr. O'Brien, whoever is going to take the lead. Gentlemen, you know the rules. Name and professional address is fine. Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge &Wolf Peter Trowbridge, principle of Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects, 1001 West Seneca Street here in Ithaca. Robert O'Brien, HOLT Architects Robert O'Brien, principle of HOLT Architects, 217 North Aurora Street in Ithaca. Mr. Trowbridge — And also, Rick Couture is here this evening representing Ithaca College. So if you have questions that are specific to issues that either Bob or l cannot address, Rick is here. if you need to discuss those. First thing we would like to say is that the Gateway Building as it is proposed is consistent with the Ithaca College master plan that was developed these past several years. If you go back that that original plan, you'll see that there is a Gateway Building and the Gateway Building that is just north of Dillingham Hall, just where we have located this building also framed a pedestrian way, which at that time was called Main Street. The business school, as you know, and you have reviewed that in the past and the Gateway Building then constitute the beginnings of the development of pedestrian way really running east and west. Maybe I'll go point at the drawing. It may make more sense. So it is a little small on this diagram, but what this is,, *this red building here is an early diagram of the Gateway Building and again, I think .most of you have seen . presentations of the Master Plan proposal, which talked about a Main Street concept. The business school began framing that between Job Hall and the business school and think that as most of you know,, the campus this is Dillingham and we would be immediately north of Dillingham. Developing an appropriate gateway, really a front door . to the Ithaca College campus. Just to give you a little orientation. As Fred said, there are three primary programs in the building. Admissions, so it is rather important at this point, at this 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved juncture as most of the visitors to campus will come through the Danby Road entrance that admissions be located at that location. The executive offices and human resources. Most of those programs are in Job Hall, as you know, and you are also familiar with a couple of temporary IT buildings on the campus and the hope is that as Job Hall or other programs, it is sort of a shell game ... I mean as you begin to pull programs out of buildings other programs can move in and we are anticipating that once this building is up and occupied that the temporary buildings would then be removed from campus and IT would fill in those spaces. I know that there area few other items that the board is interested in. Again, this is a more advanced floor plan_ of the Gateway Building, the business school, Job, Dillingham and one thing you see between the Gateway Building and the new business school, is a big plaza that runs north south from the fountain pool area below the stairs and we have a turn around that ... we're having a. meeting tomorrow with TCAT, to look at that as one of the primary public transit stops on campus. It would also be an orientation point. We are moving the information signage from the campus parkway to the circle so that all visitors will come to that, location. It makes sense from an admissions perspective from people coming to and visit, people in the executive suites, but this plaza space then would really help. to define that terrific view from the stairs and the fountain out towards Cayuga Lake. A few other things environmentally is that we're. proposing the asphalt areas to be permeable asphalt. We are trying to accommodate storm drainage in many different and innovative.ways. We have also made a submission for preliminary and will be back in mid - August to talk to you about that. So the plans have advanced since we have made these submissions and sketch plan. We are looking at bio- swales in this location, a rain garden and bioretention area in the middle of .the circle and also slightly to the east of that circle. So there would be several different places and ways in which we will deal with stormwater. Porous pavements, green roof, bioretention areas and all of that Will become, I think, more technically clear when we come back next time.. I know another issue that the board may be interested in, certainly staff was, how do we get service and emergency vehicles to the new business school and this new building, the Gateway Building, because I know when you approved the business school the assumption was that fire trucks were going to come up the. existing road to the business school. We have met with Tom Parsons, the fire marshal, and this plaza will be heavy duty pavement that will allow fire trucks to sort of move up. This is a mountable curb, move up the plaza, and then both serve the business school and the new Gateway Building. The primary way they would set up if there was an emergency in the Gateway Building would be in the parking lot between Dillingham and Gateway. And I believe you have a letter that we delivered since the last meeting relative to our meeting with Tom Parson. The other thing that I think is important is that the project doesn't generate any new traffic. All of the existing users are already on campus. Any new traffic patterns or. any change would occur within the campus. Visitors who come now for admissions 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved .. . would continue to come in the same way, that they are coming. Administration moves ever so short distance from Job to the new building as true with HR. So any change in traffic pattern would really be internal to the college and not affect any public roadway. I believe those are the previous site issue.and I think what I would like to do is turn it over to Bob to talk more about the building and building materials. Mr. O'Brien — Thank you, Peter. This is a view looking south from ... this would be the Campus Road here. On the left if the business school, on the right is the building that we are proposing, the Gateway . Building. You can see the public transit turn around here and the plaza rising up the fountains in the background. The building material; just to go over that in general; the building is 3 stories plus the basement. So on this side it is 4- stories on the uphill side facing. Dillingham that's more of a 3 -story building. It is primarily curtain wall glass. The solid areas that you see are limestone panels. The base of the building, which sort of disappears into the ground as it goes up the east and west sides, we are planning to have the native blue stone in dimension stone. The panels over there on this end and there is a corresponding portion on the backside, on .the east side of the building, are zig panels. Now this is an aerial view looking from the northeast toward the building. The building is also connected back to Dillingham by an elevated bridge. The reason for this has to do with the admissions functions. A big part of admissions is making a campus tour. Right now they originate in Job Hall and they immediately go into an enclosed route that takes them all the way to the campus center. We hope to be able to continue that pattern beginning here. People will come into a two -story, three -story atrium that looks out toward the lake. There is a forum on the second floor, which is sort of a meeting room for people coming to admissions to visit campus. Then as groups they will go out across here and eventually make their way. down to that... connecting to that indoor corridor to campus center and then they will make their way back outdoors through Dillingham and back to this building. I think Peter mentioned that there is dedicated parking for admissions that would be 16 to 20 spaces, approximately the same as they have now, between Dillingham and the new building. We are striving for lead Gold rating with the building. The building is registered with US GDC. It appears right now that we should be able to achieve that. I think that is about all. We certainly will have more detail at the next review. Mr. Trowbridge Just one other point. When Bob was talking about Dillingham that I did not discuss is the grades are going to be changed on the north side of Dillingham so that the. entrances are ADA compliant. As you know, if you have approached Dillingham from the north side, it is a half level lower than grade and we are going to be bringing grade up so that the entrances on the north side of Dillingham are compliant, accessible entrances, which will also make this building compliant. And also, relatively the same grade as the business school so the two of them get seen in some ways as a pair at the same topographic elevation. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Questions? 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Howe — Just a quick question about the fire truck. It looks like there are actually steps in that corridor. Mr. Trowbridge — Yeah, there was, Rod, and we eliminated those. This was a ..very early submission and I think you will, in the next mailing, get a very different... not a different, but a more advanced lot of drawings. Chairperson Wilcox — You go to the Trustees with one thing they had approved and- you come to us with something different. Clever. [laughing]. Lets go back to the.. you mentioned the lead certification. How is ... what is the certification level that we were attempting to achieve with the business school building and then g. old? How does that relate? Mr. O'Brien — They were striving for platinum. 1 don't know if they are on track to achieve that at this point. I know that there have been some changes in the building and in the budget. Platinum is the highest and gold is the second highest. Chairperson Wilcox - You are shooting for gold? Mr. O'Brien — We are shooting for gold. Board Member Conneman — Does gold mean that you don't use air conditioning? Mr. O'Brien — No. It doesn't mean that. It means that we .achieved certain levels of efficiency in excess of what the code would require, but it doesn't mean that you can't have air conditioning. In fact, we will have air conditioning. Board Member Howe — I think in general they balance each other. i don't know"' how much the design is going to change, but I like what I see right now. Chairperson Wilcox — Looking over here at staff. Anything? Mr. Smith — No. Just note that you do have a resolution on your desk. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much for reminding me. You are right. We do have one piece of business to take care of and that is we have a draft resolution in front of us, which would... Chairperson Wilcox reads the resolved clauses of the resolution. Board Member Thayer moves the resolution and Board Member Conneman seconds. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -065: Lead A_gency Designation, Ithaca College Gateway Building, Tax Parcel No.'s 414-30.2 & 41 -1 -30.4, 953 Danbv Road »A PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of. Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for 4the proposed Ithaca College Gateway Building located on the Ithaca College campus north of Dillingham Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41-1 - 30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is for a new 4- level,; +A 50,500 gross square foot building for the Office of Admissions, the Office of Human Resources and the college's executive offices. The project will also include new stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, landscaping, and changes to the adjacent parking area and walkways. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, PL, Agent, and 21 The proposed site plan approval and special permit by the. Planning Board and height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals are'Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR . Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code . regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves the construction of a nonresidential facility with more than 25, 000 square feet of gross floor area, and 3. A Full Environmental. Assessment Form, Part 1, and . additional application materials have been submitted by the applicant for the above - described action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate. the environmental review of the proposed site plan approval, special permit, and height variance for the proposed Ithaca. College Gateway Building; along with other actions that may taken by involved agencies, if any, in conjunction with the proposal, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: . AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT. Mitrano. The vote was declared to be carried. 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — You are all set, gentlemen. Thank you. very much. Board Member Thayer — Looks good, Peter. Great job. Chairperson Wilcox — We have some time. MINUTES PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 =066: Approval of Minutes: June 20, 2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Howe. RESOLVED, that. the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the June 20, 2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. ABSENT Mitrano. The vote on the motion was carried. OTHER BUSINESS The board discussed the memo from Dan Walker regarding a minor lot line modification in the Grandview Subdivision. Mr. Kanter added.that the owner of the lot is interested in bringing a proposal before the board to split the duplex parcel into two lots. This lot has a specific condition imposed by the Planning Board stating the parcel should not be further subdivided. The board discussed the possibility of canceling the August 11 2006 Planning Board meeting. They decided to wait until the end of meeting before determining whether the meeting could be canceled or not. Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview'of the items tentatively scheduled for the August 15, 2006 Planning Board meeting. Jennie Daley of the Ithaca Journal introduced herself and explained that she would be covering the Town of Ithaca meetings. Board Member Hoffmann appreciated Ms. Daley introducing herself to the board. 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview of legislation passed by the State Legislature requiring basic training for Planning Board and Zoning Board members provided by the State at no cost to local municipalities. It calls for 4 hours of training each year. SEQR Green Heron Farm, 1457 Trumansburg Road Chairperson Wilcox — I need a name and address please. Linna Dolph, 1457 Trumansburg Road My name is Linna Dolph, 1457 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca. David Dunbar, 1457 Trumansburg Road am David Dunbar, same address, 1457 Trumansburg Road. Chairperson Wilcox — I would ask for the benefit of all of us here and members 'of the audience. If, you could just give us a couple of minutes about the operation and how long you have been there. Ms, Dolph — We purchased the farm in 1990 and went before the Zoning Board i >that year, I believe in the fall of that year. We received a variance to run a boarding operation. We have been there 16 years. We have been . before the .Zoning Board three times, I believe. One for an indoor arena, which I put up, two times for the:, use variance. Basically it is a. boarding operation, training operation. I teach lessons, children, teenagers, adults. We have had on average about 18 horses there. Chairperson Wilcox — And you know why you are here tonight in front of this board ?, Ms. Dolph Yes. We are here to get a special permit. Chairperson Wilcox — Right and that is because under the old zoning ordinance your boarding, horse training facility was not allowed, which is why you needed to get the' use variance.from the Zoning Board. Under the new zoning it is allowed with the granting of a special permit by this board. First thing we deal with are the environmental issues. Frankly I am not aware of any environmental issues here. Board Member Thayer — I don't see any Chairperson Wilcox — You are not proposing any changes in your current operations? Ms..Dolph — Not really. It is currently on the market, however. The only thing... if we can't sell it, I have a small fortune in the buildings and the farm. If we can't sell it, then there is a slight possibility that we may want to subdivide a top portion and a bottom portion, one to Evergreen and one to 96, but I think it should sell. 8 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — If that comes to fruition that is a separate application and you will be. back here. Ms. Dolph That is not related to this at all. I just wanted to make you aware of it. Board Member Talty — Would this special permit be transferable at that point if they did sell it? Chairperson Wilcox— It goes with .the property. Absolutely. Board Member Hoffmann —.The one question that I had... is this yours? Was that you mentioned something about this 50 foot buffer zone that was supposed to not be used. It was supposed to be non - occupied and non -used, but there are some paddocks that come within that zone and looking at the map it looks like there are about 5 paddocks that come within that buffer zone, but most of the boundary looks like it would allow that 50 foot buffer zone along. it. Mr. Smith - Right and they will need to go to the Zoning Board for the variance for those areas: Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but do you have any comments about the buffer zone other than what you wrote to us and the need for it in this particular case? Mr. Smith — Like you were mentioning, most of what is within the 50 feet isn't building or the intense use. It is the open paddocks.. The only real structure that is within the 50 feet is the fence lines. That type of thing. So it doesn't really seem like there is much of a problem with it: Board Member. Hoffmann — It looks like there is a little bit of a buffer between the northern boundary and the paddocks there, the larger paddocks. Are.there trees in that area? Ms. Dolph - Yes. There is a hedgerow actually. It is about.:. I measured it. I found the stakes and measured it. I think it is something around 37 feet. Mr, Dunbar — It is really thick. Ms. Dolph — It is a really thick hedgerow. 'On the other side where Mark Williams lives, there is a huge field. I mean it doesn't come near his house or paddocks. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, we are not only looking at it, at the existing condition today, we have to look into what might happen in the future, too. . Board Member Conneman — I might just say that you certainly improved it since you bought it, Ms. Dolph - Thank you very much. We worked hard. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Thayer - Don't you think this map should be updated ?. I mean it is an '89 map. The boarding people there like Cunningham's and Alling's are no longer there. It just seems like it should be updated. Board Member Hoffmann - It does say June 2, 2006 on the bottom. Board Member Thayer It does say that, though it certainly isn't updated as far as the properties next to it. Board Member Hoffmann - Oh. Okay. Mr. Kanter - Yeah. We had asked Ms. Dolph to provide this map, which was based on the early survey map with her annotations with dimensions and .distances as they are today. I think that June 20th '06 date is Linna's initials and her indication. This special permit does not require site plan approval and so we tried to figure out what the board would want to see in terms of the actual dimensions and updated information without going to the extent of doing an updated full survey of the property. Chairperson Wilcox - They will have to get a full survey anyways at some point. when they sell. Are you comfortable? Board Member Hoffmann - Well it looks like...I see the numbers here now. It looks like it is about a 25 foot buffer along the northern edge that you have written in on the map, but on the southern edge there doesn't seem to be any buffer left. Ms. Dolph - That is actually a fence line. It is not a paddock. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, the southern... right. Board Member Hoffmann - Where you have three smaller paddocks. Well, that was the only concern that I had about it since the earlier papers indicated that there was supposed to be a buffer. It's there everywhere, but I don't think it is a serious problem as long as whatever buffer areas there are remain and that nothing is put into that 50 foot barrier in the future. Ms. Brock - And Eva, to address that, when we get to the resolution for the special permit, I have drafted a little bit of language that I think will accomplish that. Board Member Howe moves the resolution and Board Member Talty seconds the motion: Board votes on motion. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 :Approved PB RESOLUTION NO 2006 -067: SEAR, Special Permit, Green Heron Farm Dolph, 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 234-27 MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Special Permit for the, proposed continued operation of the existing equestrian facility located at 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1 -27, Low Density Residential Zone. The current +/- 10 -acre horse facility boards horses, trains horses, and. provides lessons. The equestrian facility was previously operating under a variance from. the Zoning Board of Appeals which expired on January 24, 2006, Linna Dolph & David Dunbar, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to the Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on July 18, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by Town Planning Staff, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination, of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part. I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part ll in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. 11 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, .Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT.- Mitrano. The vote on the motion was carried. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued operation. of the existing equestrian facility located at 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town. of. Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1 -27, Low Density Residential Zone. The current +I= 10 -acre horse facility boards horses, trains horses, and provides lessons. The equestrian facility was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals which expired on January 24, 2006. Linna Dolph & David . Dunbar, Owners /Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Board Member Thayer moves the resolution and Board Member Conneman seconds the motion. Ms. Brock = I have some language to change the resolved clause. Paragraph a would read as follows, "granting of the necessary variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow existing fences and paddocks to be located within the required 50 foot buffer around the perimeter of the lot." Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable, gentlemen? Board Member Thayer — Sure. Board Member Conneman — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you hear that? Why don't you come on up? I want to make sure you hear it. Did you see the draft resolution? Ms. Dolph = Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. So the draft resolution said, "granting of the necessary variance by the Zoning Board to allow portions of the equestrian facility to occupy the 50' foot buffer." Now it is being changed to the following. 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock So the phrase, "portions of the equestrian facility to occur within the required 50 foot buffer" would be changed to, "existing fences and paddocks to be located within the required 50 foot buffer." . Chairperson Wilcox — So what is there is what you get. Ms. Brock — So you need to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow your existing fences and paddocks to be located within the 50 =foot buffer. Mr. Dunbar's comments not audible. Chairperson Wilcox - And the way that this was originally drafted, is said to allow portions to exist. That was a little ambiguous and frankly could allow you to potentially add more so we want to limit you to what is there already. Mr. Dunbar 's comments not audible. Chairperson Wilcox — Could not intrude into that buffer zone. That is correct. We are not done yet so we have a motion and a second. Changes are .acceptable gentlemen? Board Member Thayer and Board Member Conneman indicate the changes are acceptable. Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION N6..2006=068: Special Permit, Green Heron Farm — Dolph, 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 234-27 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued operation of the existing equestrian facility located at 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 234-27, Low Density Residential Zone. The current +/- 10 -acre horse facility boards horses, trains horses, and provides lessons. The equestrian facility was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board. of Appeals which expired on January 24, 2006. Linna Dolph. & David Dunbar, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Special Permit, on July 18, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part /I prepared by Town Planning staff, and 13' PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 181 2006 Approved 3, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 18, and accepted as adequate other application material, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 2006, has reviewed That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit to allow the continued operation. of the existing equestrian facility (Green Heron Farm), located at 1457 Trumansburg Road, as provided for in the Town of Ithaca Code §270 -55. (Principal uses authorized by special permit only), finding that the standards of §270 -200, .Subsections A - L, and §270 -55, Subsection l (numbers 1 4), of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, with the exception that in §270 -200, Subsection G, and §270 -55, Subsection 1, number 2, portions of the existing equestrian facility would occur within the required 50 foot buffer around the perimeter of the lot, and therefore is subject to the following condition: a. granting of the necessary variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow existing fences and paddocks to be located within the required 50 foot buffer around the perimeter of the lot. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None, ABSENT: Mitrano. The vote on the motion was carried. SEQR Buttermilk Falls Bed & Breakfast, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road Chairperson Wilcox — Is Ms. Rumsey or an agent here? Have a seat. Welcome. Name and address, please. Margaret Rumsey, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Rd Margy Rumsey, 110 East Buttermilk Falls. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you to put the microphone right in front of you so that we can both record you and amplify you for everybody here. As I did with the previous applicant, a couple of words about your operation and how long you have been there. Ms. Rumsey — I have been there since June 1948. 1 came as a bride and I've been doing bed and breakfast for a long time. Chairperson Wilcox — As with the previous applicant, you have been before the Zoning Board in order to obtain a use variance because a bed and breakfast was not allowed under the previous zoning. Now you are here before the Planning Board because a bed and breakfast is allowed with a special permit from this board and if we should grant 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved that permit, you won't have to come back every 5 years. There we go. So the first thing is the environmental review. Questions, ladies and gentlemen? No. You are not planning any expansion? Ms. Rumsey - No. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?' So moved by Kevin, seconded by George. Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -069: SEQR, Special Permit Approval, Buttermilk Falls Bed & Breakfast, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Tax Parcel No. 38. -1 -2 MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of a Special Permit. for the proposed continued operation of the existing Buttermilk Falls Bed and Breakfast located at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax , Parcel No. 38.4-2, Low Density. Residential Zone. The Bed and Breakfast was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, which expired on May 21, 2006. A bed and breakfast is now allowed in the Low Density Residential Zone by Special Permit authorized by the Planning Board, the purpose of this current application, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the. Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board on July 18, 2006 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Special Permit, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination . of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required: 15 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Ta/ty. NAYS: None. ABSENT.- Mitrano. The vote on the motion was carried. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed existing Buttermilk Falls Bed and Breakfast located Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38 =1 -2, Low DE Bed and Breakfast was previously operating under Board of Appeals which expired on May 21, Owner /Applicant PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved continued operation of the at 110 East Buttermilk Falls tensity Residential Zone. The a variance from the Zoning 20068 Margaret Rumsey, Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and reads the public hearing notice. 'Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:51 p.m, Board Member Talty moves the resolution and Board .Member Thayer seconds the motion. Board Member Hoffmann — I am just a little bit concerned. I would like to, have Jon Kanter or Susan review for everybody what the new regulations are about how many occupants one can have in a bed and breakfast in the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Brock — Under the zoning code, a bed and breakfast is defined as a building that was originally used as a dwelling other than a hotel and motel, in which accommodations for transients are regularly offered for compensation. Accommodations include provision of at least one meal and in the building no more than 4 bedrooms can be utilized for accommodations. So that is our state zoning code. New York State building code also has some requirements for bed and breakfasts. They must be owner occupied and I believe no more than 10 guests can be, staying in the building. if it serves more than 10 transient lodgers, under the State building code it is considered a motel or a hotel and there would be different building code requirements that would apply. Board Member Hoffmann — So the first regulations you said were State ones which said no more than 4 rooms in .a building. Ms. Brock — That.is the Town zoning ordinance definition, yes. Board Member Hoffmann — But this request is for up to 10 guests in a building plus up to 4.guests in another building. 16 Ms. Brock — Right. That is why the resolution states that she would need to receive the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. That this special permit approval would be conditioned on. her receiving that because that second building, think in the past when they granted the use variance they really considered it part of the. bed and breakfast operation, but under this definition it really wouldn't be. It is .a separate building and it becomes a second principal use on the `lot and no more than one principal use is normally permitted on a lot. Board Member Hoffmann Do you on staff have any history about other bed and breakfasts in the Town of Ithaca and how many rooms they have and if there are . any exceptions and specifically if there is more than one building in use for rental? Mr. Kanter — I am familiar with the bed and breakfast on Hanshaw Road between Warren Road and Community Corners, which is a larger building, but I don't know how many bedrooms it is approved for, but that is a single building and they probably also were either grandfathered or operating under a use variance .• I couldn't tell you exactly the history of how they came about. There was another smaller bed and breakfast in a house on Warren Road, which I am not sure if it still functions as one.. I think that recently that house was put on the market and I am not sure what its current status is. In this case, the Zoning Board specifically did authorize the use of both the main house for the 4 bedrooms and the cottage for up to 4 individuals as part of the bed and breakfast facility and that was granted under the most recent use variance that was issued a little over 5 years ago. Board Member Hoffmann — I am just trying to figure out what kind of problems we might get into for the future if we permit this kind of thing in two. buildings because we don't permit in a regular residential house more than one building to be occupied. Mr. Kanter — I was just going to mention that we did include the minutes of the several Zoning Board meetings from 2001, which outlined at least the history of that particular request. Board Member Hoffmann — And I did read that. And I actually was on either the Zoning Board or the Planning Board when this particular matter was in and so I .am a little bit familiar with it from that time, though it has faded in my mind. Chairperson Wilcox — My opinion is that this is an ongoing operation that has worked. I'm not aware of any issues that have arisen from the operation of this facility. And yes it is unusual given that it has two principal uses on one lot, but it has been in operation for quite a while. Ms. Brock — And the operation in the cottage really wouldn't. be considered part of the bed and breakfast operation per se. I think it would be considered a separate use. So your permit would really extend to what is happening in the house and if the Zoning Board wants to then allow another principal use on the lot for rental to transient guests 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved or to longer -term renters, because that was another idea, I think that Ms. Rumsey had, they can consider that. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, well I don't have anything against the idea of doing this. I think it is a great idea for people to be able to use a big home for some other purpose like this and I have thought so for a long time Long before it was popular and acceptable, but I'm just a little bit concerned that we might be permitting something that would come back and haunt us in other ways. I hope not and I think that this particular one is well located for what it is doing. I have no problem with approving it generally. I just wanted to ask those questions. Board Member Howe — I'll move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second already. Board Member Howe — Oh, you do. Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Any changes? None at all? Ms. Brock — Because I worked with Nicole on this beforehand. Board votes on motion. � f 9 8T21^u ■IA AAA& A7A. 4nnrn Val 110 East B Tax Parcel No. We are very efficient. N MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of a Special Permit for the proposed continued operation of the existing Buttermilk Falls Bed and Breakfast located at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38.4-2, Low Density Residential Zone. The.Bed and Breakfast was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, which expired on May 21, 2006. A bed and breakfast is now allowed in the Low Density Residential Zone by Special Permit authorized by the Planning Board, the purpose of this current application, 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 the Special Permit, has on July 18, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff,. and 18 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved 3, The Planning Board on July 18, 2006 has reviewed and accepted as adequate the aforementioned Short Environmental. Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and.other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested Special Permit listed in §270 -200 of the .Code of the Town of Ithaca have been met; and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit for the , .proposed continued operation of the existing Buttermilk Falls Bed and Breakfast. . located at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38.4 2, Low Density Residential. Zone, subject to the following conditions a. That the bed and breakfast operation than ten guests at one time in no more b. That the guest cottage be rented to no one time (if rented as short -term transii of the necessary variance or variances AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. in the main house serve no more than four of the bedrooms; and more than four overnight guests at .ant lodging), subject to the granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 1. That the Planning Board finds. that the impacts to the neighborhood that would occur if the guest cottage were rented as a one - family dwelling from August to May would be equal to or less than the impacts that would occur if the guest cottage were rented as short-term transient lodging. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mitrano. The vote on the motion was carried. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 -10t subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1- 8.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/ -.47.5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0.4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the. Cornell . Lab of 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 . Approved Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to the Salem Drive Park. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, and connecting. Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods. Road. The project also includes the development of new stormwater management facilities and walkways. The project is anticipated to be completed over a 10 -year period and .result in a development of one and two- family dwellings. Rocco Lucente, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox reads the public hearing notice at 8:02 p.m. and invites Mr Fabbroni to address the board. Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way Lawrence Fabbroni. I live at .1 Settlement Way, Ithaca, New York. We are here to present the subdivision again that you reviewed the environmental report for about a month ago. This project is, as we've stated, 47 lots in the area that it would extend Birchwood Drive out to Sapsucker Woods Road. Extend what is now North Birchwood to a dead end. We propose renaming that particular street to Beechwood. Years agog in 1965, when a master plan was approved, these roads once went around and connected. So that is the history of North Birchwood and Birchwood. At this point it is more confusing than anything and the staff.suggested we rename North Birchwood. The project also includes the connection of Sanctuary Drive from Sapsucker Woods Road through to Beechwood, passing by the park and a small cul -de -sac that would be named Lucente Way. The other 3 parcels beyond the 47 lots, there is one.large parcel in green that would be donated to Cornell University that is adjacent to the Lab of Ornithology. There. . is another acreage, about 8 acres, in the center of the project to the south that would be.. donated to Cornell Lab of Ornithology. There is a small, almost triangular area that would square off the Salem Drive Park. That describes_ the 50 parcels that we are proposing tonight. As part of the project, we studied the soils like I have mentioned several times to you in the past that the groundwater table in. this area, even though people think of it on the surface, its 20 feet below the surface. There is a perched water table that creates this south wetland and the wetlands to the north. The wetlands to the north are long drainage ways as well. There is a drainage way through the middle of this, but for the most part the perched ... the fragipan of the soil is down about 2 or 3. feet is what trapped the water on the surface. When we put the sewer, years ago, in Briarwood we didn't encounter water in the trench down to 20 feet deep. As part of this project the water main would be extended out from the end of Birchwood to Sapsucker Woods Road. The water main would be extended to the end of Beechwood and through to the tank.site so that would be looped. The water main. would be extended off the end of Sanctuary and back around to an existing Town water main that comes through from Salem Drive to Sapsucker Woods Road. The sewer, just in simplicity, would. extend itself off of existing sewer lines at adequate grade to serve all the land. The traffic was something that years ago you asked me to address. I did a traffic study. The traffic volumes in this area are pretty minimal in the peak hour and 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 182 2006 Approved when you add the roughly 760 vehicles a day or 76 vehicles in the -peak hour: It still maintains all the intersections at a level of service A. Level of service A, those not familiar with the terminology, is the highest, best level of service. Level of service E would be toward break down. Some of what you see at times in the City. So I think it is safe to say in the total build out you will still have the same quality of-life pretty much that you have today as it relates to the traffic. We addressed a number of issues along the way. I will have Erik speak to the drainage issues, which were, as you know from the last meeting, the largest concern of the neighborhood and what we have been working with the Town, but.in general we will design for this project so that the before and after is the same. In addition to that, we are working with the Town to retain additional. stormwater to try and mitigate some problems the Town and the County have experienced down stream. Basically, we have quality catchmen areas. In the southern end of the project we have three of them and the stormwater retention would be by a type that would be built in the rear of the properties that Mr. Lucente owns on Briarwood to form a dyke and. to retain a substantial amount of stormwater. Up to the north, Erik can describe in more detail, which we have now, this facility. Since the last time we saw, we have eliminated the two additional small areas that were right adjacent to the wetland. We didn't even like how close they were to the wetland. So we worked out a way to have a ditch around the perimeter of these lots and serve all the quality and stormwater retention in a dual chamber facility here, which we will show you more detail on din a minute. We have also talked to staff since the last meeting to try and pin down some traffic calming issues and pedestrian issues. At this point what we are proposing is a separate walkway along Birchwood on the backside of the ditch all the way out to Sapsucker Woods Road. We are proposing widening the shoulder 3 feet on Briarwood. and striping pedestrian lane on that for two reasons. It is a low volume street. I wish I had my camera. I went to pick up Rocco for the. meeting and kids were playing ball in the middle of the street. So am trying to say to you, as we discussed it with staff, there wouldn't be much reason for people to go back and forth on this street even after the cul -de -sac is built. There is more of an east/west flow in terms of what the desire lines are. So after we labored over discussion for quite a while we decided that a wider shoulder on that existing street with a stripe delineating the separation seemed to make the most sense to everyone including the Highway Superintendent. The walkway would be on the... over the ... cover the ditch on the north side of Birchwood and then be separated from the road on the west side of this extension on Sanctuary Drive and it would extend around to the end of the project which was an addition from the last time. Before we had. it terminating in the park. Jon Kanter and others suggested that this walkway be extended here for the chance that pedestrian ways and other things might be developed along Sapsucker Woods someday up to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary can speak to their own future plans, but in our conversations with them they have talked about extending the trail system out. And as far as the park some day, we have allowed for the continuation of the soft pedestrian way from Salem Drive through to this Lucente Way dead end, which the people now .use in a casual manner. 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved We also discussed color asphalt crossings at the intersection of Briarwood and. Birchwood, Briarwood and Beechwood, and Lucente Way and Sanctuary, Drive. Those three crossings. The.. County seems to have found colored asphalt, which Fred Noteboom, for one would prefer over a different surface for maintenance reasons and continuity pavement. That pretty much summarizes the things that we talked about. Where we have hydrants, we talked about creating a bump out. where .actually the-. landscaped area would come up to the edge of the pavement rather than have a shoulder that continued through there. That seemed to be a logical point because the municipality required access to the hydrant anyway and it would sort of create a little throat in terms of discouraging speeds. I think it was at least the opinion by the majority of the group that the curves on this particular road would be another factor that controlled the speeds. The dead end, obviously, or this curve ... there had been some discussion of a guide rail here but we talked about separating the walkway sufficiently from the road and I think this counted that particular need. As far as the buffer and sort of enhancing it on the rear of the properties, the resolution identifies the rocks that border on these green areas. There was some suggestion that the trees in the rear 25 feet of those lots be controlled somehow. My suggestion is that anything 4 inches or larger be basically preserved. That would also allow us where we have rear diversion ditches to meander amongst the more substantial trees and accomplish the drainage purpose while preserving those trees that are most proximate and critical to the border area. I think at that point I would like Erik to describe in more detail the north facility that I spoke of.. This will all be perfected with Creig and Dan as we move along to final subdivision, but 'I know it was of particular interest to a few of you just how these retention facilities work.. At this point I will have Erik describe that to you then I will come back. Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn Street Erik Whitney, 409 Auburn Street, Ithaca. I won't too deep into the technical stuff that engineers love, but basically this project is the textbook solution from DEC. Here is a standard design from the DEC design manual. The whole. purpose of the retention pond is two -fold, to attenuate the quantity of the water flowing off the site to less than or equal to the predevelopment condition and to retain a quantity of water for a period of time to ensure the quality. This pond is designed to hold what they consider the entire water quality volume, which is roughly .2 inches of rainfall over the entire surface area collected and flown to the pond and it will be retained permanently. That is the volume in the pond below the overflow structure. The overflow structure is in three components, what they consider a one -year storm component, which they call the CPV volume and that volume is the runoff from a one -year storm or 2.3 inch storm and that would enter the pond and come up to a certain level and flow slowly out through an orphace. The orphace sized to release that storm over a 24 hour period, thus giving the water time precipitate out even the fine solids to settle those out and at the same time have some retention time for quality treatment in the wetland area. It flows through the center of the pond... here is a one on four slope, which is rather general and right at this water level, you go to a one on ten slope and that is the area they want to have planted. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved with aquatic vegetation as a filtering and nutrient uptake mechanism. So there is about a 15 foot stretch. of one on ten slope and what that does is it. goes from at the very water's edge from zero inches deep to 18 inches deep and that provides a good footing for most of the aquatic vegetation to grow and those are the depths they like. So the area that is hatched up here in the little vegetation symbols is a wide bunch that surround the whole pond for a width of 15 feet and the 4 -bay for a width of about 10 feet and the reeds and various vegetative materials that I guess the Cornell Lab of Ornithology is going to recommend to us and Terrestrial. Environmental Systems is going to recommend some. indigenous species to plant there. The tube chambered pond here that you see is what they call 4 -bay, which is about 4 foot deep, in this case 5 foot and 'one of those ... (not audible)...weir. In the 4 -bay is the heavy materials that might run off the site, the sands, the silts would settle out before they plug up the pond proper. In the pond is where the main treatment takes place.. On the outside of the pond you will see a 12 foot wide mowed area on top of the berm. There will be access for maintenance and cleaning as required by the DEC to have a 127foot wide berm at the top., Then the third overflow that is designed into pond is. what they consider for a 10 -year storm.. The fourth overflow point is what they consider for a 100 -year storm. There is a weir and this weir and spillway becomes active in a serious storm event of 5.5 inches or greater. Other than that, the 10 -year storm would pass out an overflow structure, which is similar to a catch basin grate arrangement with a debris rack on top of it. Any questions on that? Chairperson Wilcox — I have a question, Creig, have you seen it before? We haven't seen this chart before, have we? Mr. Hebdon — I just saw it right before the meeting. I took a look at it. Chairperson Wilcox — Can you give me an idea of when you first saw that chart? Roughly, when you first saw it. Mr. Hebdon — 5 o'clock. Chairperson Wilcox - What is your initial reaction to it? Mr. Hebdon — It is pretty much right out of the DEC design manual and it looks like it is going to do what they say it is going to do. It has the four components that DEC requires for each of these types of ponds and that is before they put in the other area for detention. So they are cleaning everything up and then it is going into the other areas. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fabbroni — We understood that you wanted us to perfect this for final subdivision, but rather than waive our arms around we sort of... 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — No. I understand. I just wanted to make sure that I gave Creig 'the opportunity to say here is how long I have seen it and what my initial reactions are. Board Member Conneman — Is there some evidence that DEC has; that. it works? I'm not an engineer, but... Chairperson Wilcox — Creig, you want to..: Mr. Hebdon — This has been under development now for quite a while and in particular in the Rochester area they have been using these things for 10 or 15 years now and they seem to work really well on those four levels. And that- is where these ...you see the QSF is 100 -year that is for flood protection channels for a 100 year, storm. They came up with these numbers from scientific information that they got while building these: They have it to the point now where they are pretty well under control exactly what it is you need to do and they have the formulas and stuff. I mean it. is quite a big, thick book that you have to work through each separate and that it ... obviously. 1 will have to take this information and go back and sit down and go through the book and make sure that all the numbers add up, but my initial reaction is that Erik usually brings it in and the numbers usually add up right. So I would say that this is going to do what it is supposed to do. Mr. Fabbroni — I think, George, because of the Chesapeake Bay, I think you would find the State of Maryland sort of had a heads up on everybody and they've had a manual that I think if you looked up the New York State manual and you looked at the Maryland manual from 1990, they look very similar in some ways. So there is a track record there of these filtering mechanisms. Bernie Carr is also here, I might mention if you have some questions about the vegetation or the wetlands delineation or any of those sorts of things. We delineated the wetland again. It was delineated back in the early 1990s and there was a very small addition to the wetland as a result of this delineation. I have. mentioned in the past that this particular delineation was done in one of the record years... one of the wet years on record. So it should be a pretty conservative in terms of more extensive delineation of wetland than any other year you might choose to do it in. There are a few things that come up continually that I thought l would present a little information on and hopefully put them to bed. One I would. like to show you... I've handed this out before, but the middle of the photo represents the area to the. west of what we are talking subdividing, which was once a hay field. It also shows the southeast corner of the area where Sapsucker Woods and Hanshaw Road intersect was an open field. It shows an open field up where Sanctuary ... where Sanctuary Drive is at this point. There have been a lot of conversations every time I am in here about how bare lots are: I would like to present you some pictures tonight... these pictures will represent... the pictures I just handed out represent the old areas of Birchwood, Maplewood, Sycamore, Meadowlark, Cardinal and Sapsucker Woods Road that Mr. Lucente developed over time. You can sort of draw your own conclusions on the landscaping that you see there. Some of these areas, as I say, were hay fields before he began or open fields. I think they speak PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved for themselves. In contrast, I have some pictures of Winthrop Drive, Simsbury, Blackstone, that area of the Town where you can make some comparison to areas that were developed in the same time frame and what they look like landscape -wise 20, 30 years out. Another thing that always comes up is, what do we intend to do with these lots. We have outlined our. best projection of one and two family homes in terms of the number of one and two family homes we might have in the traffic report and it is everything allowed by zoning, but there is some notion that Mr. Lucente has rented these houses forever. He owns one house at this point on the old part of Birchwood, Maplewood, and Sycamore and it's a retired schoolteacher who doesn't want to leave Ithaca and has rented the house from him for 25 years. He owns three houses on . Cardinal Drive and Meadowlark, which he built every house that is on either one of those streets. He owns three or four houses along Sapsucker Woods Road. So I only mention this... maybe it is not even germane to what we are saying, but there has been a lot of talk about what he owns and the rest of what he owns and rents on. Briarwood. He rents mostly to professional families or graduate student families. As I say, there are many, many children in a neighborhood. I just brought that up. Board .Member Hoff looking at this, could Mr. Fabbroni — If you photo just above the to be a hay field and lie. lnann — Larry, can I interrupt you for 'a second? While we are you tell us what it .is we are looking at again? turn the photo around I will tell you. If you look at the center of the east/west road, that is the east/west, road. That center area used is now where the old part of Birchwood, Maplewood and Sycamore Board Member Hoffmann — But lets identify these roads. This is Hanshaw Road Mr. Fabbroni - That's Hanshaw Road. Board Member Hoffmann — Salem Drive? Mr. Fabbroni - That's Muriel Street, Board Member Hoffmann — And what is this one? Mr. Fabbroni. That is Sapsucker Woods Road. Board Member Hoffmann— Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fabbroni -Salem Drive is not on that map. Board Member Hoffmann.— And what year was this done? Mr. Fabbroni — 1954. 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — And while we are at it, you mentioned that this wetland delineation on the map there was done in a particularly wet year. What year was that? Mr. Fabbroni — When did we do the first one, Bernie? Mr. Carr - The first time was 1993 and then we did it again in 2003. Board Member Hoffmann So this is from 2003 that we are looking at. Mr. Fabbroni - That is correct. Mr. Carr —Yes. Board Member Hoffmann - Now I... (not audible)... Mr. Fabbroni — I'm sorry. So just some facts that you.might be interested in. He also tells me that he has planted 100 trees in the Briarwood neighborhood this year and that is consistent with what he has done for 60 years, which is go in and reforest areas that were disturbed, largely because it was necessary to set the house at a certain elevation and grade around it. Susan has asked us in the staff meetings to promise to plant one tree per lot. That is not a big promise based on what I am telling you. So we are very happy to make that promise. The engineers asked us to change the final design to drain to the center of the cul -de -sac at the end of Birchwood. We have been through your resolution and it looks pretty thorough. The only question I have in the whole resolution is where it says you can't have building permits until all the roads and the park are dedicated. Are we expected to give you a staging plan the next time around and would hope that there is some understanding that the first road is built and we can building permits on the first road, we don't have.to have all the roads dedicated. The way it read right now, it sort of suggests all the roads and the park are dedicated and it would be kind of uneconomical to go in and build all the roads before we started one building site. A lot of these sites already front... I mean a lot of these future .lots already front on a street so that is the one item of all that we would like more discussion about. Chairperson Wilcox — As the questions come flying at you from staff, I'll just ask ... or from board members, just move the microphone amongst you so that we can both amplify you and record you. Who wants to go first? Kevin? Board Member Talty — I just have one quick question on the pond. Is the maintenance a regulated thing or is it as needed? Mr. Fabbroni — Well the way the Town has it set up, there is a maintenance agreement. that would be signed by the way.we were talking, Cornell basically would become the owner of the open spaces and then they would execute a license back with Mr. Lucente 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved for the period of construction and stabilization, but then that maintenance agreement would be between Cornell and the Town.. That would ensure the � continuing maintenance of those facilities and there is a standard agreement that the Town has forwarded to us to Cornell and they have reviewed and they're pretty much on board with it so you'll see that all agreed to in the final analysis here. Ms. Brock - And Kevin, the Town Board is looking at a revised version of that so within the next month or two there will be a revised version. So this would be something that Cornell would need to agree to sign and that would actually be a condition _right? . Ms. Ritter — Correct. : Ms. Brock — I think it's a condition. Ms. Ritter — It is a condition. So there would be a maintenance plan that's submitted now that's acceptable to the Director of Engineering and then that maintenance plan is incorporated into the agreement, which Cornell, if they take ownership of the facility, would then sign with the Town. Mr. Fabbroni — I'm sorry, I failed to mention Scott Sutcliffe is here.: He is the Assistant Director of Lab or Ornithology and you should have a letter in your possession now. Chairperson Wilcox - There was a letter on the desk when we came in. Let me just ask, in general that agreement essentially says Cornell is responsible for maintaining, the storm water facilities and should they fail to maintain them, then the Town has .the right and obligation and the ability to do it themselves, Something to that effect. Ms. Brock — Yes, and the ability to go in. And there is actually an easement that would be and right of way, which would be deeded to the Town to give them the right to enter to do any necessary inspections and maintenance should Cornell fail to do it and in the agreement and also a local law that the Town Board will soon be: considering as well. The Town would have the right to put a lien on the property if they are not reimbursed for their expenses and that expense would then be added to the tax bill for the property even if it's a property that's normally not subject to tax. There is a special tax that can be assessed for recoupment of the Town's expenses, so we are .trying to cover all the bases here and it's working its way through the Town Board and should all be finalized within the next few months. Board Member Talty — That's great. Great foresight. Chairperson Wilcox - Eva go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to ask a question about these pictures. You said they speak for themselves, but I would like to hear you tell us what your point is. And I should also add that I lived from 1965 to 1969 on the corner of Salem Drive and Hanshaw Road and it was an open field in back of the house along Salem Drive on the 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved eastern side of Salem Drive when I lived there and I am familiar somewhat with that area, so now tell me what the point is of showing us these pictures. Mr. Fabbroni - My point was there were no trees before he started and it's a well- landscaped area and he is responsible for most of that landscaping. If you look how mature it is, it's taken 20,30,40 years to mature. Most of that landscaping in that area just wasn't planted yesterday. That's my point and he is doing the same thing in the areas that he has cleared and I'd say the most accused of clearing in these proceedings and so the. point is if you follow the logic even the newer areas if you pay close attention to. those shots on Briarwood, you'll see many, many trees with animal guards planted in all those yards, some of which are the 100 trees he planted this year on his own in that neighborhood, and that's as simple as the point is because it's come up continually and . people seem to have a different impression. Now if you go over to Winthrop .Drive and Simsbury and those areas that were also farms, then they speak for themselves too. There is a lot less vegetation that went on, . Board Member Conneman — When were the pictures taken on Winthrop and Simsbury? Mr. Fabbroni —Today., Board Member Conneman — What? Mr. Fabbroni — Today. Board Member Conneman Well, I don't think so, because I live up there: Mr. Fabbroni - They were taken today. I have the receipt from (inaudible) for the photography. Board Member Conneman — Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — You're making a point that that open field has been built on and planted and there are trees growing there now. But that area that we are talking . about now is the area on this map, which. is to the right of that, which is all wooded in this map. Mr. Fabbroni — That's correct. The point is that Mr. Lucente has cared about the landscaping and reforestation. That's as simple as the point is if I am making the point clear, then I'd say we should move on. because I have presented it poor then, but I think it's obvious to me when I ride down those streets that were once hayfields, they are not hayfields anymore, they are very mature neighborhoods with mature forests. surrounding the houses and the person who built them planted those is the point. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but most people do that and I think if you look at the area just north of Hanshaw Road, let's see, how do I describe it, the old farm just to the east of current Salem Drive, it's just the second house from- Salem Drive on. this map 28 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved and that. whole area to the east of that old farm was not built in this photo. It's been built now too, probably not by Mr. Lucente and that. has trees. That area is full of trees too and most people plant around their houses so I don't think that's unusual: Mr. Fabbroni - Most people do, but again it was just to answer, a point. If it didn't . answer the point, then I am willing to say I failed. Board Member Conneman - I'm not sure what point you're answering, but let's go on: I provided the Board with a couple of letters that I got from people in the area and I will, they convey two thoughts, including a couple of phone calls I got, Larry, and they relate to two. issues. One is drainage and another is traffic: As you know, I voted against the. SEQR the last time, because I didn't think that we had sufficiently_tackled.those issues. First of all, I don't know, I'm sorry Dan isn't here, Creig, and you're stuck with answering my questions, but it seems to me I don't know whether we really looked at the environmental impacts of this development and the drainage. If you go up there when it's wet, it's wet. The neighbors complain about the fact that there are lots of instances where water runs down the street, road and everything else. My question is can we. guarantee that this project will not have a detrimental effect on the neighbors. I mean are there drainage proposals and if so, how do we guarantee that that doesn't happen? Mr. Hebdon — All I can say is that based on all the calculations and the way they are re- . doing the drainage up there, the amount of water coming off the area behind Briarwood Drive, is going to drop. The volume that comes off the, they're putting in a new: v -notch weir, so instead of having a wide open pipe where that thing just comes pumping out of there, it's actually going to be retained for a length of time. What you are going to end up with is instead of having five feet of water coming down through the ditch side, you're going to have two feet of water. But instead of having five feet of water for five hours, you're going to have two feet of water for ten hours to try and keep that peak flow down and that's where all the erosion and sediment is going to get picked up and carried is with that velocity of that peak. We are trying to reduce the velocities and reduce the amount of water that comes through the system all at once and they're pre and post is significantly lower than what it is now. Their post - development is going to be significantly lower. They are also taking and doing all the clean up in these four bays and these ponds before the water is put into the existing drain system or into those wetland areas. So everything is coming off in the existing, the new proposed system will be going through these various ponds and stuff and being cleaned up before it's put into the other part of the system. Board Member Conneman -1 wish we could guarantee that. Mr. Hebdon — You know if you get a 500 year storm and this is all designed for a 100 year storm like it's supposed to be, you know it's like down in Conklin, I.wish they could guarantee the river is never going to flood, but you can't make those guarantees. All I can say is they have gone through used all the formulas and equations that the DEC requires. They have used all of the data that we know of and have done what they are supposed to do. 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006. . Approved Board Member Conneman — Do we have a letter from the DEC that says that? Mr. Hebdon - DEC puts that back on us: Board Member Conneman - Okay. The second question I have deals with traffic. I don't know where you got your numbers from Larry.about traffic. If you have renters, you are. likely to have more traffic than if you have single- family homes. Would you agree with that? Mr. Fabbroni - Yeah, but overall we have projected ten vehicle trips per day. Board Member Conneman — I don't care about vehicle trips. I want to know if vehicles are parked in the yards, because that's where I would begin. Mr. Fabbroni — Well I think I made the point the last time George and for the benefit of the.audience that wasn't here and may be amongst those asking the question, we have projected the standard number that, for this density of development is in the national handbook and then we did not project any reduction due to the transit that's available in the area so if you follow me through all of that, the numbers we use. were conservative... Board Member Conneman — Obviously, these came out of a book. They are not real numbers. Is that right? Mr. Fabbroni — No but, if you look at, we went and we counted traffic at the intersections and if you look at the number of homes, including apartments and other things in that neighborhood, the numbers we used are more conservative than what actually was occurring in, already occurring in the Hanshaw, Tareyton, Rose Hill, Winston Court, Salem Drive neighborhood, so there is always what if, what if, what if, but we were responsible in terms of using a number that would be more than you are experiencing already for the dwelling units against what was coming out of Salem Drive and Muriel . Street. We counted traffic morning and afternoon in a typical day and I mentioned the last time that's when this school is in session, there is no snow storm occurring. Board Member Conneman — Have we seen those numbers? Mr. Fabbroni Oh yes. They are in information you had for the last meeting. Board Member. Conneman — I don't recall, but anyway. Mr. Fabbroni And you also had information from the Town of counts were made by both the County and the Town that also showed the numbers were in that range so I am always happy to answer any of your questions, but we were conservative is what I am' I aying. Normally, we would project 10% at least of that given the population might use 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved transit, we didn't. We loaded it all on the traffic network and we still had a level of service A, you know Hanshaw Road would carry about 6,000 vehicles a day even in the build out. Hanshaw Road could carry 10,000 vehicles per day the way it's built, even. before it's rebuilt. Board Member Conneman — I wouldn't want to see that, 10,000 vehicles a day. Mr. Fabbroni — I wouldn't want to see it either, but as an example, the. area North Triphammer, just north of the corners, has carried 13,000- 15,000 vehicles per day on that little two -lane stretch for 15 or 20 years, so I guess my only point is I am not making the numbers up, these are things we learned in traffic engineering and transportation planning and... Board Member Conneman — If you go up to Salem and Muriel and the other streets up there, it seems to me there is a lot of traffic. I am concerned about kids on the road. am concerned about traffic calming and so on and so forth and I don't know whether the traffic calming devices that have been suggested are sufficient. I really, don't know because traffic is pretty fast up there.. Mr. Fabbroni I could only depend on collective opinion of staff, which represented two or three different opinions, but we tried to include all of those concerns in what mentioned to you a few minutes ago. Board Member Thayer — What were the intersections? Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, hold on. George, are you done? Board Member Conneman — That's okay. Board Member Thayer — What were the intersection traffic calming devices? You mentioned it Larry, but I don't recall, you were going to change the color of the asphalt for crosswalks? Mr. Fabbroni — Staff wanted the crosswalks delineated at those three intersections, which it seemed there would be a pedestrian vehicle conflict. Also, having the sidewalk on Birchwood, which would be the main crosswalk out to Sapsucker Woods behind the ditch as opposed to adjacent to the road and that would sort of give a sense with the way we have to build those dry ditches over narrower pavement. You also have curves on that particular stretch that would slow 99% of the people down, I mean you heard the last time from a lady who spoke to, there is always one, but there is always one in every neighborhood, we can't design for that:.. Board Member Hoffmann — Can you just clarify something about the traffic on Hanshaw Road forme? I think you said it has now 6,000 cars, 6,000 trips, l forget the word per day. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 185 2006 Approved Mr. Fabbroni - It doesn't now, but at the build out, we showed west of Muriel Street, believe, where we might get a two -way traffic. Right now it might be in the 5;500 range based on the counts that the County provided us with: Board Member Hoffmann — That's west of Muriel Street. Mr. Fabbroni — .Right, we are kind of, you know if you picture the highest accumulation from all of this because some of this traffic would come out Sapsucker, some of this would come out Salem, theoretically it could divert a few cars, but very few from Muriel Street that originate from say Winston Court now. They may use Muriel Street instead of Salem. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so the figure anyway is for that general stretch of Hanshaw Road. It's not for the whole length of Hanshaw Road... Mr. Fabbroni - Not down by the Corners'... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, I would think there would be much more. traffic there. Mr. Fabbroni — Not on Hanshaw going into the corners, but the.collective traffic in the, Corners because of the other road I mentioned. The major route is North Triphammer and Pleasant Grove and to a lesser extent Triphammer, North Triphammer. Ms. Brock — I am good. I am ready for the public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else have questions at this point? Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I have a.question about the letter, which we just got when we came here this evening, which essentially says that the Lab of Ornithology at Cornell, they have negotiated with you and Mr. Lucente. about accepting the two wetland parcels, but there is no final decision yet about whether the property will be accepted. That depends on what the University Counsel's. Office, the Cornell real estate office, if I read this correctly, that's all, think about it. Mr. Fabbroni — I'll let Scott speak to that. My interpretation of that is we have final details on the drainage facilities to work through, both with you and the state and we need to get the letter back from the Corp of Engineers. We have written to the Corp, we expect the letter back, so those fine details need to be accomplished before we can sign a final agreement with Cornell and I'll let. Scott speak to the rest of your questions. Mr. Sutcliffe — Thank you, I am Scott Sutcliff from the Waterbrook Road in Trumansburg, the associate director at the lab. It's our intent to accept the property as, a gift as Larry has indicated this evening, pending the considerations that we outlined in the second paragraph of that letter and that's standard practice for Cornell, to dot the is and cross the is before we say a final yes to acceptance of. a property. So it is our 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006. Approved intent to accept that property as a gift to'the Cornell Lab or Ornithology as an addition to the sanctuary. Ms. Brock — There is a condition in the draft resolution too that addresses that issue Chairperson Wilcox - All set for now? Any staff wish to make any comments at this point? None. Let's give the public a chance to speak. Bob Chang is in the back corner right? I would guess that we are going to ask you to come back at our second meeting in August. We still have the public hearing to be held and give the public a chance to speak and then if time is left, this Board will then consider the subdivision in front of us. We would like. to end at 10:00. Sometimes we go to 10:15,10:20. You are welcome to stick around hoping that maybe either we come to an impasse and stop and end early or we get close to 10:00 and we make a decision pro or con and we will try to squeeze you in, but I can't guarantee you and I know you were told that in advance, so I thank you for your consideration. Ladies and gentlemen, once again, this is a public hearing. We will ask you to come to the microphone, have a seat, give us your name and address, and we will give you an opportunity to speak.. As a general rule, we do not put time limits on our speakers. We think that works best. On the other hand, if you begin to ramble on or get off subject, I will interrupt you and ask you to either get back on the topic or to conclude your remarks as appropriate. So having said that, I will ask you to raise your hand, I will call upon you in some random order, and we will be very pleased to hear what you have to say this evening. So having said that, who wants to go first and I remind you, you all can't go last. Brian How, 109 Birchwood Drive My name is Brian How and I love at 109 Birchwood Drive with my wife and we have dived there for 12 years. The house is owned by our daughter, Sara Howe, and her husband, James Alexander. I am concerned about the impact of this development on the nature of the northeast area in general, on pedestrian safety, on water damage, and they share my concerns. And, it's not here, but I should say that this was prepared before tonight's presentation, so I have learned some. things that I would change if I had this opportunity to do so. As I understand it, the proposed development, if authorized, would permit the construction of about 50 new homes on street or streets parallel to and west of Sapsucker Woods Road. If recent experience is any guide, I am looking at what the developers put up in recent years, these structures will consist each of a large. building with four bedrooms and two bathrooms in front, an apartment building with two bedrooms and one bathroom. I am sure most of you have driven down Briarwood or sanctuary because of the importance of this project. I've seen those buildings, they are almost identical. There are about 20 on Briarwood Drive and next to it, front door painted a little different color or something like that, but basically the same. On Sanctuary Drive there are another dozen or so. These are substantial buildings. There have been recently two offered for sale on Sanctuary. Drive for just under $400,000 each. Simple arithmetic would say that 50 times 400,000 are $20 million. So you are dealing with a big project here and I think you folks have a lot of responsibility as to how that's going to turn out. This brings me to my first concern. It's not likely that many of these buildings will be owner occupied. My observation of residents on. Briarwood 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved suggests that mostly will. be rented by students at Cornell or other young transient couples. This is why I have to revise something because what I wrote here is while many tenants will have good intentions, it's likely that pressures on time and money could prevent them from maintaining the properties adequately, including replacing trees that are moved or damaged during construction. I have learned tonight that there, are plans to put a lot of trees in here and that's great. Where we live, the house was constructed 40 years ago and a number of elm trees were planted in the depression'. behind our house presumably to soak up the water and those have sprouted over the years and now we have the problem that they are falling down and we, have to take them away at a considerable cost, anyway. Most of the earlier homes in this neighborhood. where I live are owner occupied and well maintained. But I think it is too bad to add another 50 large rental buildings to the 30 .or so already here on Briarwood and Sanctuary Drive and the large apartment buildings at the end of Salem.. Could not the buildings be scaled down to become more affordable housing for more permanent residents and maintain the character of the neighborhood? My second concern is for pedestrian safety. This has also been discussed quite considerably and .l have some. comments about that later. Currently, many young adults walk back and forth on Birchwood Drive and other roads in the area to Cornell or work. and children to the Dewitt Middle School. Most go and come first thing in the morning or in late afternoon or evening to catch buses at the corner of Salem and Birchwood or Salem and Hanshaw or to wait for school buses. That is we look out of our window drinking coffee in the morning and see people walking by from 6:30 to 8:30 or so in the morning and coming back at 4:30 or so to 7:00 at night. For much of the year, this is before sunrise or after sunset when snow plowed back requires walking on the road. Birchwood Drive at present has no streetlights, not a darn streetlight on the whole, there is one on Salem near the end of Birchwood, but it's at the end of Birchwood, so none of that light shines down Birchwood. It's very dark and a very dangerous situation. Many people will be walking on the roads if this project goes through. We need better lighting and sidewalks and I am glad to hear sidewalks are proposed, whether the project goes through or not.. Hanshaw Road is going to get a much - needed sidewalk and Birchwood Drive and other roads in the area need sidewalks even more. Thirdly, water damage, wetlands are being violated. As a resident I know that even the moderate rainfall creates something of a havoc in our area, ditches fill up, drains become plugged with debris, lawns become lakes and some basements are flooded. The Town Highway Department has spent considerable time trying to cope with this situation, especially at the corner of Birchwood and Salem and along Klinewood Road and Birchwood. North. But I think we certainly need independent professional evaluations of the plans to deal with independent, with the potential additional flooding that might result from .this development, as well as the impact of. increased traffic in the area and although they are well- intentioned not just accept the plans of the developer. It seems to me with the size .of the project you are facing, you need to have somebody that can come in independently and take a look at these things and advise you on them because as I said earlier, .you have a great responsibility. Thank you very much for your attention. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we have a copy of that? 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 . Approved Mr. How —Sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, could you get the copy. Thank. you very much Mr. How — As I say, I kind of modified it a little bit based on this. Chairperson Wilcox — We have you for the record, but I think it's important to have this as well. Thank you sir. Arno Selco, 311 Salem Drive I am Arno Selco, I live at 311 Salem Drive. My name is on the map right here. I won't take up a lot of your time. The most. important thing I have to say has already. been covered and I appreciate this gentleman's bringing it up again. I came to the last hearing. I have been to every hearing on this project and we had quite a lot of rain right after the last hearing and the ground around my house was super- saturated and so I am very concerned about the effect of these 50 news homes on the drainage. L appreciate all of the work that has been done, the presentation has been very, very impressive, but have the same question that you were asking and that is what guarantee do we have that the drainage will improve if these 50 homes are constructed. That's my main concern. I also wanted to say something about I think it was called casual use. of the area between my home and the Amato's home. That property is private property by adverse possession, I brought this up before and my neighbor and I have been very generous in terms of allowing people to use that property, and I am curious what Cornell's plans are once they take possession of the wetlands there. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox We'll get through the public hearing and we'll see if they want to respond to that this evening. This gentleman and the woman he is with has been here since 7:00, very patient, we appreciate it. Thank you sir. Adrian Williams, 108 Sapsucker Woods Road I would like to reiterate the concerns about traffic, especially on Sapsucker Woods Road. A couple of months ago they re -paved the road and since, that time, the traffic has been noticeably faster on the road and I think considerably less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists and I think the development that has been proposed tonight would only exacerbate those problems given that I live on Sapsucker Woods Road, that's what I am most familiar with. I am concerned about the large swath .of woods and wetlands that is being proposed to be developed. In particular I would like to bring up the fact that this area has been designated a unique natural area as I understand it, by the Town of Ithaca and I would like some more clarification on what that exactly entails and how that would affect the Planning Board's position, but I would like to bring that up again. I understand that it was raised last meeting and it's true that Sanctuary Drive cuts across that unique natural area, but I don't think we should neglect that designation just because of the fact .that Sanctuary Drive is there and given that the homes on Sanctuary Drive were decidedly unnatural. I also would like some assurance if this proposal goes through that all of the houses are not monotonous in size and architecture given that several decades have passed since Sapsucker Woods Road has 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved been developed. There is still a degree of monotony just going down the street and I am concerned that will continue with this new development. Thank you. . Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Gerald Davis, 309 Salem Drive Hello my, name is Gerald Davis. I live at 309 Salem Drive, next door to Mr. Selco, who spoke a moment ago and I have been to a few of these hearings. I think. all of them, and I was here a month ago and have been paying attention tonight. I basically come to watch and listen and discover the outlines of this, development plan and I just as you did tonight, I saw the map depicting the drainage pond for the first time tonight. I don't know if I am allowed to get up and point a spot on the map... Chairperson Wilcox —Please do. We won't pick you up very well, but go ahead. Mr. Davis — (Not speaking in front of the microphone) I hope, this doesn't come across as parochial, excuse me, because I think you'll extrapolate my observations to the rest of the plans, but there's the tank, which I am seeing for the first time with the. pond. Mr. Selco lives here and I live here and you can see there are wetlands behind our home and if you take a look at the City map, you will find that there is. a ditch that runs between the Davis home and the (inaudible) homes here. Myself at 309 and the (inaudible) at 307. That ditch actually is the headwaters of Renwood Brook, you follow it down and it becomes a brook, so it's initiated right here in this wetland and wherever it comes from upstream. Now I am looking at this pond and I have heard it described in terms of its general function and I see what looks like a spigot or some kind of a drain up here in what looks like the northwest corner, but I don't know if that means that's where the water discharge. I am just looking and referring from the map that I see. What I want to indicate tonight is that we have lived here for 19 years and in the course of the 19 years, we have had two events in which the drainage ditch between our house and the (inaudible) during heavy rains, the water level has risen and I am not enough of a hydrologist to know whether it has risen and stayed as high as it did for as long as it did because it can't drain through the pipe that runs under Salem Drive and eventually into Renwood Brook or because the ground is super - saturated and it just has nowhere to go but up. I don't really understand, but in both of these events, during the 19 -year, period, after heavy rains, water came up the pipes and into our basement and we had three inches of water, so we have installed systems through the years. Now, as I say when I take a look at this map, what l may be seeing, and I would have to hear more, is that water from a large portion of the proposed development is going to go right into that same ditch and I have heard some numbers and some statements today about what percentage and how long. I don't know if the system works or not and I am not here to say just don't do it. What I am here to ask is that people take a very, very close look at how this thing is supposed to work, where it's supposed to drain, how much water will be involved. Simple statistics says on the two events I am talking about are something like a ten -year rain, but who knows. The previous owner reported a .number of such events to me, but I don't know how many and during the course of the number of years, I am saying. two events in 19 years. And again I just want to extrapolate, I don't 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved understand the whole system, I don't know where all water is intended to go, but this seems to me a point of particular importance because this is where I see the drainage ponds, I know where.that ditch is, I know where the pipe is that goes under the road and we have had flooding here before and I just want to draw your attention to that and ask that and ask you to look very carefully at our system. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. David Collum, 1456 Hanshaw Road I feel like I am beating a dead horse here. A couple things come up. There is a softness to the data still. It still exists.. I am impressed with his skills to see r a map at 5:00 and assure us by 7:30 that it's all going to be okay. I really want your to think hard about what you are going to do if Cornell says they are not taking the land and I will tell you why, because you got landlocked wetland that's going to have real water on it and if you can round up the Cornell attorneys and get them to sign a piece of paper that says we will take the plot of land of no value with standing water that's in the middle of a residential neighborhood and we will maintain it and we will.take legal responsibility for drowned children. or anything else, then you've found a bunch of fools. There is no . upside. There is no way that an attorney who is worth anything is going to say yes to that. Now I do think they'll say yes to the stuff that's contiguous with Sapsucker Woods, but what are you going to do about that landlocked piece.and my concern is always that it's sort of long after the dust has settled and you say wow close enough. The next thing you know, the Town has it and the next thing you know, we are taking care of. it with our tax dollars and I. would love to see details of this. I appreciate the Lab of Ornithology's gains on this, my wife works there, did work there. I don't .want to shut that down, but I think Cornell will not accept that. I don't think Cornell is going to take all of the land rand what are you going to do, what are you guys going to do? I did a little map according to one statement about what Hanshaw Road could take; it was something like seven cars a minute, 24 hours a day. This is the kind of softness in the numbers. I paid a real estate attorney to look into this issue and they said you guys do have the power to restrict double occupancy in rentals and things like that and really do and I would gladly pay to have them write the resolutions if you guys would. listen. 1 would actually pay to have a wetland expert come in and tell us whether or not the. drainage plans will work. If you guys will listen, but I don't want to flush money down a rat hole, so it is a bit of perverted system that the Town really doesn't have the money to do these kind of delineations. I don't expect you guys to be writing checks to wetland delineators, so what we have to do is get, the guys who want to build on the land to do the delineation. Call me silly, but I am guessing Mr. Lucente went and found guys who would tell you what he wanted them to tellr you. This is not new, this is town politics. So, I hate coming here, I have been ra bunch of times and as I said, one of the earliest visits aerial photos from the 30s show that the entire neighborhood, everything that's been built over there is on a wetland and every time they build, they then declare what's left to smaller, but the aerial photos are very clear. Farms plow fields they can and leave stuff untouched that they can't and that wetland was enormous in its heyday. But it's too late now, that's clearly water over the dam as they say. So please do pay attention to the one at Cornell and Susan maybe you can tell me why Cornell would say 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved yes. Just give one little shred of insight as to why a Cornell lawyer would say sure we'll take ponds in residential neighborhoods and take full responsibility for them. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. I am sure we're not done yet. Eileen Grivani, 203 Salem Drive - Hi I am Eileen Grivani. I live at 203 Salem Drive. It's the corner of Salem and Birchwood North and I would just like to address the traffic issue. My driveway is about 20 feet from the stop sign. It's really hard when I back out in.the morning. There are cars coming fairly quickly. You wouldn't think that they might not be because of the stop sign, but they ,really wiz by. My kids call that stop sign an optional stop because people don't run it; but they pause and then they go. I am really concerned.. I have two older kids, so I am okay, but I am concerned about the kids who will be going to the park because there are a lot of pedestrians, there's a lot of kids riding bikes through that area and I really don't. think the colored asphalt is going to slow people down after living there that long and watching them. So I am just hoping that you have some other, or that you look at it really carefully and you come with some other ways to slow traffic down there okay. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Sorry I was talking to Carrie here. Who would like to go next? Yes ma'am. Mary Plow, 108 Sapsucker Woods Road am Mary Plow. I live at 108 Sapsucker Woods Road. I have a few different concerns actually; three main concerns and I'll be brief. One is we really enjoy Sapsucker Woods sanctuary, we are members of the Lab..or Ornithology and we partly moved to the area for that reason.. The sanctuary seems to be becoming less of a sanctuary for animals and people because of the traffic noise that's very audible pretty much wherever you are in the woods there and it's not just Sapsucker Woods Road traffic, but it's also the air traffic and all of that. And though the sanctuary might be enlarged because of this development, I think the traffic, everyone spoke to this, will be increased and the traffic noise will be increased so when you're in the middle of the woods wanting to have a peaceful walk or hoping the animals will have a peaceful place to live, it will be much noisier with some unnatural traffic noise. My second concern is that we really like living on Sapsucker Woods Road, although the quality of life is decreasing throughout, we have only lived on that road for one year because of all of the traffic and the people speeding. I would say most of the cars going down the road are definitely quite a bit over the speed limit so that's another concern. My last concern is the woods right behind our house and they would be totally decimated by this project. We are the second house in from Hanshaw Road on the left side of Sapsucker Woods Road and we have enjoyed many different bird species in the woods behind the house who also. come to our bird feeders, great crested fly catchers, yellow belly sapsuckers, quite a few birds, mammals and you know, just tearing that all down will really make me not want to live there anymore and it's a very sad thing to think about. Thank you. K: - PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, .2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Anybody else? Would anybody else like to speak this evening? Yes sir. Stefan Wagner, 112 Sapsucker Woods Road A number of thoughts that have crossed my mind and I will try just to mention a few of. them. One is I don't know if this sounds too philosophical at this stage because the process is pursued by some so aggressively, but I am wondering Why does there have to be a development in this very spot? There is so many areas in and around Ithaca where if you develop them, you would do far less damage. Why is it that this very area needs to be developed, which is one of the most precious in all of Ithaca? Why? Why do we have to tear something down only to plant some token vegetation or some trees afterward, which is never the same, which is a caricature of what it was like? Why can we not leave nature and animals alone on what is already an incredibly curtailed area because of previous development? Why do we have to violate nature by, I mean, this area is woodlands and wetlands and I can tell you from a personal perspective what having a house on wetland means because we have experience in the last few years that we have lived there, but this area is clearly unfit to be built on. Now why go to all this length to try to come up with things that have not been proven to impose that, to make your development work when really, when you look at nature and the conditions that exist that people have had to deal with for decades now,. simply tells you don't . touch me, this is not where you should consider building. Why is land owned so you . own the right to destroy it? Birchwood Drive and Sanctuary Drive are prime examples, can only. reiterate what other people have said about the experience, the simple experience of going there at night. You know when I take walks there at night I have always wondered for how long would this be left alone and it's curious to me that if the issue of what Mr. Lucente apparently owns in terms of rental property along those roads, because I do think that a matter of personal greed and a certain, inevitability that the development is supposed to have, I think that it is an issue even though people may not want to see it raised. But why does this development machinery have to get to work. in this very area? The thought occurred to me, the principal of eminent domain is invoked right, people own something and they think they will own it for life or be able to bequeath it to their children and so on and then someone claims the principal of eminent domain, takes it away from them and compensates them for that. Why is that principal for instance not invoked here? Instead, well you may own this land, but clearly, this land is far too precious to be torn down and be replaced by the kind of developments that you have put up before. Why don't you go out to some open field? mean it seems to me absurd that you attract people by saying come and live in the woods, come and live in this nature preserve only to raise it. completely, and I mean really raise it, put up extremely monotonous housing and then as I said plant some token trees. When I look at previous developments by Mr. Lucente in this area, ` especially along Sapsucker Woods Road, which I believe is the first. one, the poor quality of the architecture and the poor material quality just strikes me and I thought to myself well if someone proposes, someone has done this and he proposes to do more of this, except only in the 80s style or 90s style or (inaudible), would anyone let him? would say maybe you should look into something else, so even though this process has already, has been moved along and you're sort of asked to consider various details, 1 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. Y 18 2006 ._ JUL , - Approved don't see there's any inevitability in this. I wish you had let me say the greatness to consider not to let any of this take place, not a scaled down version, not some partial raping of the woods,:but just let them be realized that you have something, precious and . . when you look at; I was looking at the architectural history of Ithaca neighborhoods and IL I realized how many crimes that have been committed. Beautiful buildings have .been. torn down, they have not been destroyed by anything like a fire or other natural catastrophes, but they've simply been torn down out of insensitivity because people just didn't realize the value or a row of houses on a street (inaudible) deprived of one important element and to me if this development were to take place on Sapsucker Woods Road, it would feature on that list of architectural crimes against nature that can take place in the community. The problem is development is always seen Las l said before as. something, inevitable as if it had to take place:. And I thinkL it doesn't.. It can take place as well where it' is. less damaging, but that's all.the thoughts I can think of now. Thank you very much Chairperson. Wilcox - Thank you sir. Anybody else? There being no one else; I will close the public hearing at 9:24. . Thank you very. much.. Okay. we've got some questions that we will try to 'respond to, try to keep my notes here and we will do the best we can. Larry and other agents want to come forward. Creig you want to talk about the drainage structure, the water detention structure first, because I saw you. as the Lquestion was being asked, you were nodding Lyour head, making some notes; and shaking your head,, things like that? There was a question about the particular.':. Mr. Hebdon LYes. The pond at Salem Drive when you said I got it at 5 o'clock tonight, so one of things I will be looking at is what the pre and post and what it's supposed to be doing with what's going down through that. Like I said, I haven't had ,a chance to take a look at the numbers yet and see what's going down the ditch line between those two houses, but it's definitely one of those things that we are going to have to take a look. at.L That is what was happening before and what's happening now, and are we helping it, are. we hurting it, what are we doing? Chairperson Wilcox- Go ahead keep going. Mr. Hebdon. I am trying to look at all of the:.. Chairperson Wilcox Reference was made if you would, would you go up: to. the center map. There was- reference made to a structure as part of the _detention area and the gentleman was wondering if that was an outlet. Mr. Hebdon, - Oh, this right here Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. Mr. Hebdon - Yeah. That is the weir that comes out of the pond.. That's the 100 year: • storm flood protection and that's the multiple that Erik talked about earlier. There is an •: 40 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved outlet out in this area. Where... (inaudible)..: I haven't. checked numbers yet ... (inaudible). [Mr. Hebdon was away from microphone] Board Member Talty — Just on that point, so what you guys said before about controlling the water and the rapidness that it leaves the detention pond, so it.would be a longer. period of time with less water, correct? Basically? Mr. Whitney — Yeah, the rate of flow coming off the site will be less than or equal to the rate pre - development. In this case, if we do some. of the impoundment around the existing wetland area, take care of some of the existing flows there; it will be less than the pre - developed. We aren't changing the location.where the water comes off the site, we are maintaining the existing drainage patterns and will be extending.the period of the flow and lessening the rate of the flow with these structures. Board. Member Talty So your professional opinion is that these folks in and around that general area that he pointed out before don't necessarily need to worry a majority of the time. That the rate of flow of the water will not increase the probability of the flood in and around their homes. Is that correct? Mr. Fabbroni — One thing we failed to point out in the original presentation was this pond, the intention of this pond is to as Erik says, the pre - development and the post - development run -off should be equal. However, what we didn't mention was there's a culvert under the utility right of way here and it's our intention to build an impoundment where additional waters are detained above and beyond what's required for the development. In other words, this facility right here is what's required by the state for what's being developed. There's no water being diverted from any place that isn't already coming this way. So in essence, as far as development is concerned, the pre and the post by everything we know, from the numbers we have worked with, will be the same, the rate of run -off will be mitigated over a longer period of time for certain storms, but this facility here would impound more storm water. In other words, it should greatly improve the situation, the pre- situation, and I know we've covered a lot of ground, but this is what we've had, indications from the Corp Engineers that we can do this because we are doing it outside of the wetland, but what happens is we back the water up into a triangle of the wetland area here. You know if you've lived there that you have keep the ditch behind all of these properties so we're not really, we think this will be highly successful even if that dyke somehow overflowed, it has a spillway essentially built. there. already, but I just want to point out we talk about the catastrophes and the 500 year storms and all that, but this should help greatly with what you'd experience for thirty years. Board Member Conneman — Is that above ground? Mr. Fabbroni — No, it's above ground. In other words, .you know from living there that this right of way now sits up a little higher than the ground, so it starts to form its own dyke so along the north edge of that area the utilities would be south of there. There will be a 3 or 4 -foot dyke that would be (inaudible) in this triangle some of which is 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved wetland, some of which is not, just temporarily. The intention is that over 24 hours, the water would then come out at a slower rate, but I am pointing out that that in particular would reduce the normal flow that you have seen before we.ever started to do anything. This facility here is meant to deal with the lots that are now being developed that naturally flow in that direction. Based on our observation, based on the topography shot, we're not herding water from someplace else to this location. Now, what you see coming by here comes through the woods and to that ditch and down between the two homes. Board Member Mitrano - Is that net of what you just said vary that there's gonna be less water there? Mr. Fabbroni — Less. Board `Member Talty - That overflow pipe at 10:00 on that circle, where does that go, does that go. in this ditch that that gentleman is talking about? Mr. Fabbroni - That goes there, but again the intention is the net is zero, but in addition to that that other area would impound a substantial amount of storm water that are currently isn't impounded at all. Board Member home and then Mr. Hebdon — I it that closely fc Mr. Fabbroni Mitrano - And Craig the gentleman who spoke very eloquently about his the headwaters of all these other little waterways, that's all correct? am not sure if it's the headwaters of the creek. I haven't really, looked at ,r that. think he is correct. Board Member Mitrano - And so, is this an area that irrespective of this development might be worthy of attention by the Town in order to see whether there is the appropriate drainage for the runoff for it? Sounds like there is something... Mr. Hebdon — Okay, .so you're saying that if this development does not happen ;is it something that, yeah we could put a different. type of, like he's got in there, the berm, and that type of stuff to try and slow the water and do that type of stuff. Board Member Mitrano - Right, okay. Chairperson Wilcox - Alright. Many comments about pedestrian safety and I think we will get back to those because I think we are going to continue to discuss safety. There are numerous questions about structures to be built, their size, their cost, someone asked did not all the houses look alike? There was the issue of tenure. It be.owner renter, gonna look to the Town attorney right now. Briefly summarize what this Planning Board can and cannot do when it comes to tenure and architectural design. How's that? :. 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock. Tenure? Chairperson Wilcox — Owner renter. It's a census bureau term. Ms. Brock _ Okay. Board Member Howe — And maybe also the issue of whether we can limit the size, just for the general public. Whether they can have the small income apartments and... Chairperson Wilcox — I know the answer but I want... Ms. Brock — Well, I hope it's the same answer I am going to give. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, let's hope so. Ms. Brock — Your subdivision regulations do not give you the ability to restrict the number of the types of dwelling units beyond what the zoning ordinance says you can do. This is medium density, residential zone. The zoning ordinance permits one family dwellings and two , family dwellings, so under your subdivision regulations, as I read them, you don't have the ability to say .these cannot be two- family dwellings because . the zoning ordinance says that's permitted in this zone. The one exception is if this were a cluster subdivision, then you have that ability. The same holds true for appearance. If this were a cluster subdivision, then there are design standards and you are given the ability to regulate exterior characteristics. Because this isn't a cluster subdivision, we look to the rest of the subdivision regulations and there is no mention in here of your ability to regulate exterior characteristics. Chairperson Wilcox — Or the renter? Ms. Brock - Really, the same thing. There is nothing in your zoning ordinance that makes any distinction when it describes a family.. When you look at who a. family is to see who can live in a one family or two family dwelling, there is nothing. in the definition of family that describes rentals, except if you have a large number of unrelated people living together claiming they are the functional equivalent of a family, they need to be renting from a period longer than an academic year. But other than that, there is nothing there, I mean if you have a group of related people who want to_ come in and rent, there is nothing in the ordinance that gives you the ability to say you can't have renters. Again, if this were a cluster subdivision, you might have a little bit more leeway on that as well. But this isn't a cluster subdivision. Board Member Mitrano - Susan, I have two questions, one is related' to this last point. Do we have the authority to require something to be 'a cluster subdivision? So, someone comes to us with a plan that is not clustered. What's the scope of our authority? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18Y,2006 Approved Mr. Kanter I'll give a preliminary answer and the answer is yes you do have. the authority and that would normally happen five years ago when this application first came. to the Board: Board Member Mitrano — I seer Board Member Howe — Does that mean you can't bring it up at a later time if you didn't bring it up five years ago? Mr. Kanter - Well, I think it would be difficult to bring it up at this point when the Board has made an environmental determination of no significant impact. Yes. Board Member Howe — That's what I thought. - Board Member Mitrano - Because the clustering is related to the environmental impact or just as a matter of process? Mr. Kanter — Absolutely. One of the reasons we are using clustering is to. preserve significant natural areas and open space areas. Debatable whether that is being done through other means in the subdivision, it is to some degree, but that was not raised as a significant issue during the SEQR process. Board Member Mitrano — So, just for the sake of my edification, if we could. turn the clock back five years, is there any criteria by which we would have to evaluate and . operate to request a clustered subdivision or is it ... there is criteria. Is it then environmental? Mr. Kanter — I think it's in our subdivision regulations, as well as in Town law, which enables towns and villages to do that. Board Member Conneman — What information for the future, if we had not passed the SEQR, we would be in a different position. Is that right? Ms. Brock — Yes I think so. Mr. Kanter — I think it would have been in a different position if, five years ago you had the number of sketch plans that came before the Board had raised that issue. Ms. Brock Well, your regulations say at the time of preliminary approval shall be determined whether or not the subdivision to be considered. shall be a cluster design. So I think legally you could have done. it even at this late date Board Member Mitrano — Just repeat that. Ms. Brock - At the time of preliminary approval, which is what's under consideration now, preliminary subdivision approval. 44 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — I just want to be sure I understand what you are saying. Just say it again, Susan so I understand it. At which time and at what time are we .now? Ms. Brock — Well we are considering preliminary site plan approval and the regulations say at the time. of preliminary approval it shall be determined whether or. not the subdivision to be considered shall be a cluster design. P I.. Board Member Mitrano — And that time is right now? Ms. Brock It is, but given the fact that the environmental review has already been done on a non- cluster design, I think that you would now be in a difficult decision to demand that this be reworked to be a cluster design. One of the purposes for cluster design is to preserve open space and so you relax the lot size requirements, allow the homes to be put closer together so that large contiguous areas of open space can be preserved. If you're thinking about it that way, in a way they're doing that and I don't is it half the land that is going to be donated to the Lab of. Ornithology, but they're not consequently taking the benefit that they could get, which would be to put more houses on smaller lots. They are still following the lots size requirements. Mr. Kanter — Actually l think many of the lots are larger then the 15,000 square foot minimum of the zone: Board Member Mitrano*— So even with a cluster design, we might have lots of questions about space, wetlands, architecture, design, etc.. Ms. Brock — I mean I think what it really comes down to is are you comfortable with the. wetland delineation. I mean, do you feel that that was appropriately done or not? Board Member Mitrano — That was my second set of questions actually that I said. Is there a legal definition of wetlands? Ms. Brock — Oh sure. Board Member Mitrano - I know you have simple way to characterize that definition? expertise in environmental law. Is there a. Ms. Brock — Well, it's never simple and the way wetlands are delineated changes over time as the Army Corp of Engineer manual changes, but there are three characteristics that you look at. You look at hydrology, you look at the type of soils and whether they are hydric soils, which indicate soils which are typically saturated for some period of time, and you look at vegetation and whether the vegetation that's growing is the type that's typically associated with wetlands and it doesn't have to be cattails. It can be certain types of trees that tend to be found in wetlands as well. And in terms of the hydrology component, I am not sure what the exact current definition is. I am sure that somebody here can tell us exactly, but and it's moved around over time, but it's typically 45 - PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, .2006 Approved the water is within so many inches of the surface for a certain period of time during the growing season every year. And if. that water exists at, that level for that period of time during the requisite period, then the hydrology component would be satisfied.. So there is three things you look at. Typically you want to find all three factors are present. Board Member Mitrano - I see and is this entire area, do you know, whether it is a wetland according to this definition? Ms. Brock - I have no idea. I haven't been on the properties. I haven't walked. it and even I had, I don't have the necessary expertise to make that determination. Mr. Fabbroni — I would like Bernie to speak to his work on this project, if you will. Bernie Carr, 210 Parish Lane, Syracuse Mr. Carr — For the record my name is Bernard Carr, 210 Parish Lane, Syracuse, New York. I worked on the original delineation back in 1993. 1 re- delineated the wetlands in 2003. The wetlands were slightly larger and I am talking less than 100 square feet. I think we did an adequate job, a very.good job at delineating the wetlands.. I don't think that if you hired another consultant to come out and re- delineate the wetlands; as was suggested by one_ of the speakers, that the line is gonna change. The. Corp. of Engineers or the DEC at any time can come .out and examine the boundaries and make a determination and we've made a request to them to examine the boundaries. We visited the wetlands with Susan Ritter and one, other person from the Town in .the past and there was no objections raised at that time with staff in terms of where the wetland boundaries were. Board Member Mitrano — Okay, and maybe we have talked about this before at three or four meetings, and.sometimes it's hard to keep all the.facts straight, so essentially my question in asking all of this and that is very interesting information; is are the proposed structures on anything that is legally considered a wetland. Mr. Carr — No. There are no structures in wetlands and matter of fact there is a buffer area is provided around all the wetlands. Board Member Mitrano — I see. - Mr. Carr — And there is no direct wetlands impacts in terms of filling .in wetland or putting a structure or road on a wetland. Board Member Mitrano — Okay, thank you... That was essentially my. question. Mr. Fabbroni — And they are not landlocked. They have frontage on a road, all the wetlands. Board Member Mitrano — And is the land being prospectively donated to the university regarded as a wetland by all of these definitions? ro UP PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Mr. Fabbroni Roughly eight acres of the 25 are wetlands. The remainder of what's being donated is modified woods. The other thing I might mention, as an observation of Bernie's professionalism is he did the delineation in 1993. 1 followed after as a land surveyor and surveyed all his little flags as .if I was surveying your lot.. Now all of those flags were gone when we came back in 2003 and it's pretty amazing if you compare the two how.he went around and put new flags in without knowing where the old ones were and how close they were to the boundaries. So I mean that at least indicated to me that his identification of the three factors was pretty consistent. Board. Member Mitrano - I am not even. questioning that, Mr. Fabbroni. I was just trying to establish whether there was any construction on the wetlands, which I think you have answered. Thank you. Ms. Brock - Can I just follow up with a question. So you don't anticipate needing to apply to the Corp for any kind of wetland fill permit? Mr. Carr - No. What we did is we submitted the wetland delineation report for the Corp of Engineers to review it. We also submitted the drainage plan that was prepared for them to review also. The purpose of that is to get a letter of no jurisdiction from the Corp of Engineers for the project, meaning that there is no wetland impact from the project. Ms. Brock - Do you anticipate that they will come on site themselves? Mr. Carr - Generally they do and it's only a question of time when they do it in their schedule. If the Town wanted it quicker, the Town could make a request to the Corp and it would be quicker than if I do it personally just because of how busy they are with reviewing boundaries and processing permit applications. Board Member Conneman - But you don't have a letter today? Mr. Carr - No sir. Board Member Conneman - Okay. Ms: Brock But we could be it in a condition that the preliminary site plan approval is conditioned on receipt of a letter from the Corp stating they don't have jurisdiction and that there would be no structures placed in wetlands. Board Member Mitrano - That sounds like a good suggestion. Chairperson Wilcox - We gave them a full size set of plans. Board Member Mitrano - Sounds like it's not a problem, but it sure would be a nice I to dot. 47 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Howe - While we are talking about wetlands, I would like, this question actually came up last time and I have been curious why the Lab. would be interested in. this other parcel cause it's not contiguous. It has very limited access, so I would like to hear... Chairperson Wilcox — Is the gentleman still here from the Lab? Board Member Mitrano — No. He left. Board Member Conneman — Susan, one of the... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Hold. Board Member Conneman — Sorry. Mr. Carr - It was my understanding that the Lab was, interested in it because they . wanted to keep the wetland intact and that the donation was also including and upland buffer. So it's not just being a wetland, it's gonna be the woods surrounding it and was being donated to the Lab and that was the important part and I think the idea of having that green space in the center is a deposit...one other item was mentioned about the unique natural area. It made no sense to me that the county changed the boundaries of the unique natural area the last time around. It didn't make any sense, because they avoided wooded areas that were outside of Mr. Lucente's land and they also drew the boundaries of the unique natural area over the existing on I think that's Sanctuary Drive. It made no sense to draw a boundary of homes that were already built out there and saying it's unique natural area. There was existing homes and there were sewers and water and all those structures were already there. And they told us on several occasions that they were gonna retract that statement and they.never did. I think it was a mistake. Board Member Mitrano — So in other, words given the boundaries, whether they are correct or not, given whatever map exists, no homes are being proposed to be built on what they have demarcated as unique natural area, true or false? Mr. Carr — Well, unique natural area includes most of Mr. Lucente's property and also includes existing homes on Sanctuary Drive. Board Member Mitrano — Most of his property that's under proposal here? Mr. Fabbroni — No homes are in wetlands of any kind. Board Member Mitrano — I am not talking about wetland now Mr. Carr — She's... PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006, Approved Mr. Fabbroni — You asked earlier, I am just distinguishing the two things. No homes are in any wetlands of any kind, nor are any structures in any wetlands of any kind. However, the homes are in unique natural area. The unique natural areas, as we have said, we did diverge study, we did a number of studies to show that that should not have been extended number one. It's also just we have a. latter which you would see in.your .packet from the last meeting from the county, the Director of Planning, that said it's just a suggestion, it's not, in other words, you don't need to exclude development in a unique natural area. We just have to address all of the issues. We addressed the bird issue. We. have addressed the fact that Sanctuary Drive was there incidentally Mr. Lucente did not build Sanctuary Drive, nor does he own any of the properties on Sanctuary Drive while we speak of that._ Board Member Mitrano — Mr. Fabbroni, I just want to ask this gentleman.... Mr. Fabbroni — I'm sorry. Board. Member Mitrano — ... some factual questions and we can maybe go to persuasion later, but, so this .unique natural area is inclusive of some of the land in this proposal? Mr. Carr — Yes, and I included a letter in the packet the last time around showing the mapping of what is in a unique natural area. Board Member Mitrano - Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Essentially all of the land proposed for this job is in a unique natural area. That's the U &A 106 is currently delineated. Larry made reference to something that Ed Marx wrote. I'll just read it, the U&A inventory is meant as a land use planning tool to guide municipal decision making about development on environmentally sensitive land is not a legally binding document. It's our decision is what the. county is saying. It's a tool for us to use one of the many tools to determine whether this is area that should be developed or not or to what density. Board Member Mitrano — May I ask a couple of other questions? Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely. The floor is your. Board Member Mitrano — To your knowledge, as they say in court, have there been any other proposals by any developers, towns, municipalities, not - for - profit organizations to take all of this land and put it in some type of trust reserve contingency for environmental conservation? Mr. Fabbroni — Your question is related to this project? Board Member Mitrano —Yeah, this land right here. Mr. Fabbroni - To my knowledge this is one of the largest gifts to a nonprofit..: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — You're not answering the questions Larry.... Mr. Fabbroni - I'm sorry Chairperson Wilcox—: Repeat it. Board Member Mitrano In sum, has. there been any other, particularly from some not for profit or conservation minded organization to purchase all of this land. Mr. Fabbroni - No. Board Member Mitrano.— Thank you. I'm all set. Chairperson Wilcox We've covered the LI&A. We've covered the architectural stuff. We've got to go back and look at pedestrian safety a little bit more, covered the structures, the cost... someone mentioned streetlights. My assumption is interested in streetlights, you need to go to the Town Board and request a lighting district: Right? We. as the Planning Board, I don't think it had been authorized through zoning regulations to require street lighting... . Mr. Kanter — Well I believe the subdivision regulations do allow consideration of adequate lighting, although typically that has not been done by this board, but if the board felt that lighting was an important issue, you could require it and it could be paid for through the formation of the lighting district. Chairperson Wilcox- ...of alighting district and the tax that then goes along with it. Mr.. Kanter — But again, that is, I don't know if there are any existing lighting districts in this Northeast area. Mr. Fabbroni — Forest Home. Mr. Kanter — But. it would be interesting, I don't think it would be necessarily wrong or a bad idea to do it in an isolated area of a broader community. There are some just several blocks of residential areas that come to the Town Board and ask for streetlight. Board. Member Mitrano - Is this a cost benefit question though? Are some people going to be concerned about light pollution?. Chairperson Wilcox - Of course. The other issue spoke was talking about the need for lighting in subdivided and which is not part of the actual subdiv get into that whole issue of the jurisdiction of this jurisdiction over. And the parcels are the ones neighboring parcels. is, is that I think the person who an area that has already been ision that's in front of us. Then we board and what parcels we have that are in front of us, not the Ali PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — And if the residents of that established area are interested in street lighting they could petition the Town Board to formulate a lighting district. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought that the Town everywhere has ..a street light wherever there are streets that intersect each other and I assume that's true up in this area, too. Mr. Fabbroni = That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Board Member Mitrano — You know, I don't think that's true just as a matter of conversation on, say, Chase Lane and La Grand or even Chase Lane and Kay. Board Member Hoffmann — There are not streetlights at intersections there? Board Member Mitrano — I don't think so. Mr. Fabbroni — I would be surprised if there wasn't one at every intersection. That's pretty much what the Town pays for. And then there's two lighting districts that I'm aware of. Glenside and Forest Home. . Chairperson Wilcox — Clover Lane has a lighting district, for example: Mr. Kanter — There are actually about 8 or so around Town in different areas. Board Member Mitrano — Okay, I'll table that conversation: Chairperson Wilcox - The gentleman who spoke near the end very eloquently about do we have to build here. That's something we as a board have wrestled with before. My position is pretty clearly, the owner of the land has the right to build as granted to them under the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance restricts what they can build, how big it is to some extent in terms of lot coverage. How close they can get to the lot lines. But as the owner of the land they have an inherent right to build something that's consistent with the zoning and is approved by the board. Yea, it might be nice to have this land purchased under some method that would conserve it: Or the neighbors purchasing the lots behind them. Potentially another way to conserve some of the land is the potential that the neighbors could, should the subdivision go through, I should say that of course, that the neighbors could purchase the lots behind them and in affect preserve some of the land. The question was well put before this board I thought. Board Member Hoffmann — There are occasions when we can. restrict a person from building on a piece of land if it is too steep and it would cause terrible, erosion.. 51 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox - Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Which would affect land beyond this particular parcel or if as in this case there are wetland areas. We wouldn't permit building on the wetlands, but that's not true in this case. Board Member Thayer - But they are not building on the wetland:. Chairperson Wilcox - Town Attorney, the question was asked about what will we, meaning the Planning Board, do if Cornell won't take the land and I believe that the resolution as drafted addresses that: Ms. Brock Prior to final site plan approval, Cornell needs to submit a letter or they need to submit a letter signed by Cornell stating that Cornell agrees to accept ownership of the facilities and maintenance facilities. So if that condition isn't met, then they aren't entitled to final. site plan approval. .Board Member Mitrano - They aren't entitled to? Ms. Brock = They aren't entitled to final site plan approval. Chairperson Wilcox - Final subdivision approval. Ms. Brock - I'm sorry. Subdivision. Board Member Conneman - Where is this? Ms. Brock - Let's find it. Its i. Board Member Hoffmann - I was actually wondering, Susan, while we are on that point if one couldn't add something about that letter we are expecting from Cornell about accepting the donation. Some language about that in the same category. Mr. Kanter - I think i is written... it doesn't cover the full donated lands. It talks really specifically about stormwater facilities. So I think it could be broadened out to talk more about the lands proposed for donation. Chairperson Wilcox - I clearly get the sense that that needs to be part of the subdivision and if those lands are not donated to Cornell then... Board Member Mitrano - We need to know what is going on. Chairperson Wilcox - Then we potentially go back and start again or do something different.. Board Member Thayer Right. 52 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, you are all set with that for now? We are getting ahead of . ourselves a little bit. Do we want to talk about pedestrian safety? I think they have come back and offered some changes here with regard to sidewalks. Yellow stripping on one particular road. I think you said which road, Larry. Mr. Fabbroni - Briarwood. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Yes. Board Member Howe - I think that needs to be more..: (not audible): Susan, in your. memo, it sort of implies... is this still an ongoing discussion? It talks ,about trees maybe being used. Ms. Ritter - When I wrote the memo, we had yet to meet with Fred, Dan, staff and Larry. Chairperson Wilcox - Which Fred? For the record, which Fred? Ms. Ritter - Fred Noteboom. Chairperson Wilcox - Who is the? Ms. Ritter - Highway Superintendent. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Ms. Ritter - After that we did meet with Larry and he has now presented a. lot of those elements that were suggested to be implemented. Board Member Howe - I would like to see more proactive traffic calming measures. Board Member Mitrano Such as? Board Member Howe I am not sure that 1 can throw out which would be most appropriate, but I think that different colored asphalt isn't enough. I would ,like to see more proactive measures. r F Board Member Conneman The City of Ithaca on Buffalo Street has raised areas. That slows people down: Board Member Talty I'm not a big' fan of those because, in my opinion, we live approximately 6 months of the year in the winter. I have yet to see, because they are so .new; what the impact has been on the plows when they go over those because know when I go over them, even if you go over at 10, 15 mph, there is still and impact. can tell you that the plows are going over it at 15 mph when they are going through and 53 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006. Approved the impact on the machinery,. now granted safety is safety, but 1 just don't think that that is a:.. an unproven::. Board Member Mitrano — Don't they have raise plow signs for that kind of thing? .. Board Member Talty - For the middle of the street, not for the ones that are curved right in the middle of the intersection. Board Member Mitrano — Well, maybe they need to put them in. there. Board Member Talty — Or some of the crosswalks that are raised because when they go and make their swing around, they don't stop. So traditionally, like manhole covers and . things of that sort that is when_ they raise the plow or the wing I should say. So I don't know what the answer is to that particular thing. I tell you what I am also not a fan of is taking the road and making it narrow because I'll tell you, I don't see the cars on some of these streets slowing down because it is supposed to be traffic calming: They are going .just as fast and they are getting a little bit closer to the other cars or the pedestrians depending on which side they are talking about. So I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think those are two of the answers. Board Member Thayer — I agree with the raised intersection. Up here I don't think it is appropriate. It is on Buffalo Street because of the schools. Obviously we don't have that problem here. I don't know the answer either, but l think that colored asphalt is definitely better than nothing. Board Member Talty - That's for sure. Board Member Hoffmann - Except that you don't see it in the winter. Board. Member Thayer — No. That's true. ' What are you going. to do? Board Member Mitrano — I'll vote for... Board Member Thayer — Every intersection has that problem. Board Member Conneman - It's not the schools, Larry, it's the kids. Board Member Thayer - Well, true. Board Member Mitrano - So's Trix. Board Member Talty And the other thing with narrowing the streets, the bicyclist never uses the sidewalks. So where are they going: Ms. Ritter Can 1. speak to that? I think we have learned a lot in our transportation committee. We have had a lot of research. provided and there is evidence showing if 54 . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006. it Approved . you narrow the pavement, that people do slow down and when you are in a neighborhood that should only be 30 mph, 35 mph, the bicyclists would be in the same lane as the cars essentially. Then you have a separate sidewalk away from the road �! where the pedestrians would go. I think there is enough evidence to show why roads make people feel .like they can speed. Wide, straight roads are much different than narrow roads and the proposal that has been made is to narrow the lanes down to 10 feet and actually have false pavement where you can actually grow vegetation right up to the road so it is still stabilized with asphalt, but apparently you can grow grass and that is what Fred Noteboom told me. Board Member Talty I am still very suspect of the whole thing. I think that if you have got 10 speeders, you may eliminate 8, but... Ms. Ritter — You are going to have speeders and people who behave poorly everywhere. Board Member Talty I just don't think that you have enough area to get out of the way. 1 think that whether you face traffic when you are walking or you are riding with traffic. I'll tell you what kills me is the bicyclist in the middle of the road. It does because if I'm. going 15 they are going 5. And the other thing, I got about 3,000 pounds on them. Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe more. Board Member Talty — Maybe more:_ So I just don't think ... the statistics may be there and I understand that appreciate what you are saying, but ultimately...I mean, I grew up on a 4 -lane highway in Buffalo. Union Road. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Union Road... Board Member Mitrano — I know. Union Road. Board Member Talty But it is 45 to 55 mph and there just is not enough time to getout of the way. Ms. Ritter — That's the difference, Kevin. When you are on a road ... I mean, Hanshaw Road is not being built so that bikes and autos are in the same lane because the speed is high you are segregating them. You have pedestrians on sidewalks. You have the bicyclists on the shoulder, and then you have the cars. This is a neighborhood where people should be driving 35. It is a fairly curvy road on Birchwood Drive so people should be driving slowing and you shouldn't need a .separate shoulder. That is the latest thinking. Board Member Talty That is the ideal .world. That is true. Board Member Conneman — Kevin, I think Judd Falls Road, when they ... the Town was very clever how they narrowed that and people go slower there because I go down it all the time. People go slower. I think there is evidence to that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Talty - But Pine Tree is also. narrow and people zip through there. s Right? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Board Member Talty — I mean you take your life into your own hands if you walking at 8 o'clock or 5 o'clock. Mr. Kanter That is actually an ideal road for a traffic - calming plan. 1 am sure the Town will work with the County to try to get something like that done because that road really needs it. Board Member Mitrano — I would be willing to vote for all three things. The painting, the raised and the narrowing of the road. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I would like to suggest that the applicants leave tonight with some homework to do in trying to come back with suggestions for us for how they can implement traffic calming in this area and then give a choice of .different alternatives to work with. Mr. Fabbroni — The staff . met ... I mean I asked for a meeting immediately after the last meeting. The staff met and they gave me their collective opinion. What I offered to you tonight was that collective opinion. You know, if you have added suggestions, we are 9 p Y 9 more than happy to add those. Its just.for us, it is a moving target because it is so new to everybody here. So if you want the crosswalks raised and colored, we're happy to make them raised and covered. If you want the bikeway along that is adjacent to the shoulder marked more, we are happy to mark it more. You know what I mean? You don't have... basically a subdivision Y ordinance with a section that says this is what we want. So I have offered to make the road narrower where the hydrants are because the Town needs access to the hydrants anyway so it is a logical .place to narrow the throat down and sort of accomplish what you are saying without having it a continuous... (not audible) ... impediment. What Susan mentioned on Birchwood that Fred Noteboom edge of the pavement, we are saying wanted the grass to give that soft affect u to the y g g 9 p 9 p that is what we will do. So I'm not arguing with you Eva as much as saying 1 brought the collective opinion in what you asked for back tonight without any exception. It is a little hard to know what the direction is from there on this. Board Member Hoffmann = Larry, could you .repeat what you said about where the o roads would be narrow? Did you say hydrants? Fire hydrants? Mr. Fabbroni — Where hydrants are, yes. There would be on both sides, there would be a curblike affect right up to the edge of the pavement so when you're riding along the road, you are going to feel that narrowing affect right up... Board Member Hoffmann — And it would widen out again after that? 56 Approved Mr. Fabbroni - Well, they are except on the road where we have the grass up to the edge of the pavement because there is gravel under it. It will have that feeling with the ffect. I can show you more specific detail at the final stage of ...grass without a curbed a y p all those and we can decide to add to them or subtract from them. .Mr. Kanter —That was the idea that all of those details would be shown prior to final subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox— Absolutely would have to be. Board Member Thayer -Yeah. Board Member Howe— It maybe that we just missed some of what you said before on i sed the p art of the narrow road before. I some of the traffic calming.. So I m s • Board Member Thayer - I did, too. Board Member Hoffmann d I did, too. Mr. Kanter - Larry, do you have. an idea where the hydrants are located? Could you show approximate locations? Mr. Fabbroni - I have them on the drawing. there. — you quickly run through about where those are? M r. Kanter Coul d Y q Y g __. Ms. Ritter — I think particularly it was the one on Sanctuary Drive that we had talked about because that was a straight shot: . Mr. Fabbroni - You already have a hydrant right hereon Sanctuary Drive. Then you have another hydrant right here. One hydrant is one block to the east of the end of the... (not audible)... then there is another hydrant that is just east of what will be Lucente Way and Sanctuary Drive intersection. Then there is one more right here, another hydrant. There is another hydrant right here where the walkway comes into Lucente Way on that particular layout. On this layout, there is already a hydrant right at the end of the existing street. Chairperson Wilcox — Which existing street? Mr. Fabbroni — At the end of what will be Beachwood Drive or North Birchwood, right in front of lot 27. Board Member Howe — Fred, I just want us to decide what we are doing about time. I am throwing a major conference that. starts tomorrow. and I am getting nervous, for 57 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved 200 people for the next 3 days so I am. getting pretty tired. I just want to decide collectively, are we:..what is, our timeframe here? Board Member Mitrano Is the remaining question traffic calming. measures? Board Member Howe — Or are there other issues as well? Board Member.Mitrano — Right. I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — I think collectively, I don't want to speak for the board, but I think we have touched upon all the issues in some depth, except for traffic calming. Traffic calming I am kind of hearing that we want more details. Details that we can look at in order to come to a final determination. The question would be do we want those details now in order to consider that for preliminary, or do we condition preliminary on seeing those details and modifying them as appropriate before final. Board Member Conneman — Have we. solved the interpretation of the- drainage? I mean . don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — That is a question for each' of you to decide. Again, that... Ms. Brock - There is also the issue of the vegetated buffer and how to: resolved that because they had some suggestions for changing our... (not audible). Chairperson Wilcox — That is correct. That's correct. And we have a list of the lots impacted in the resolution, but no resolution, but again, those are the sorts of things where we can want to see it now before we think. about preliminary or we can grant preliminary subject. to another condition. The resolution has numerous conditions as drafted already. I don't have a sense of the board right now.. I don't want to go past 10:30 anyways. Mr. Fabbroni — Hydrants. There are hydrants roughly every 500 feet to make it simple in your mind. The other thing that I would just say. to what you were just saying is there is huge expense in going through this process with the State and drainage and we can't go anywhere without a final approval on this project. So I mean one of the `things of giving us your sort of affirmative action at the preliminary phase is so that we can leap into that next level. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry,.we know don't care about that, Larry. Its just like we don't care about when people say oh we are going to create more taxable property and up the tax base. We don't care about that either. We are here to make a good decision and we don't want to delay you unnecessarily, but. we are here to make a good decision. Board Member Mitrano — Well, just to put something out there, I'll say I am satisfied with the drainage. I would like to see all three calming measures incorporated into the plan RE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved and maybe I need to hear a little bit more about the vegetation issue before I know whether that is... (not audible). Board Member. Hoffmann- And what about sidewalks or walkways. .Board Member Mitrano - Well, we do have sidewalks already. Chairperson Wilcox - They have been proposed in certain locations. Sidewalks in some locations and areas adjacent to the road in others. Board. Member Mitrano - Yeah, I was already assuming that was a done deal. Board Member Thayer. .-That is done Chairperson Wilcox - Again, we haven't seen the details.; We have. been given the explanation. We will certainly condition anything on the details. Board Member Talty Following Tracy's footsteps, I am fine with drainage. I think the applicant has done a great job. I think the Town staff has done a great job as well, especially the Engineering Department with regards to that. Traffic calming measures; I am not a fan of narrowing the roads. I would be amicable to the other two steps, however. So I am ready to proceed based upon those. Board Member Conneman - I am not satisfied with the drainage and I think you need more detail before you approve this. Board Member Howe - I certainly want the Engineering staff to have more time to look at some of the drainage issues just to feel comfortable. I think I am comfortable, but I want to hear...I mean you didn't have much time to really. look at what was presented tonight. Board Member Hoffmann - And my feeling is that even though final sounds like the decision, which is the one that is important, it is really this one, which is the important one. So we shouldn't hasten into this one. Chairperson Wilcox - What is the board's pleasure? Collectively, what is the board's pleasure? Board Member Mitrano - I would be willing to go for a vote, however, if others are not satisfied, I don't want to push a vote such that it creates a negative determination when one I more meeting might clarify some of these issues for people who then would be willing to vote affirmatively. Chairperson Wilcox - Straw vote? Whose in favor? Okay. Rod, you are on the fence? 59 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Howe — I'm on the fence. I think it is probably just a matter of: adding another condition or two for me, but I am not sure. Mr. Hebdon — Just speaking really quick to the drainage, I think that what we are looking at is the concepts are there and it is basically is the pond 70 feet, across or 75 feet across is maybe what we are looking at. Board Member .Howe — So it is not a question of whether you think the basic concept works? Mr. Hebdon = ...the concept works. There is no problem with the concept they got there. We are now into the nifty - gritty. I sit there and grind the numbers out and say okay he's got a 75 -foot that is 10 feet deep, not 15 feet deep and that type of stuff. The basic concept of how it is going to work and how it fits together with everything else is there. Board Member Mitrano — Go ahead, Chair. thought. We told you what you asked us what we Chairperson Wilcox — Does someone want to move it? Board Member Thayer — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox - As drafted. Seconded. All right,. now believe it or not, this is going to take about 10 or 15 minutes. given what she has already written. I have a motion and a second. Go for it. Board Member Hoffmann — But not so fast that we can't follow where you are. Please tell us what page you are on and what point you are working on. Ms. Brock - All right. Well, I have some questions, too, as we go through here. Page 1 whereas clauses, paragraph 3, lists all of the plans that have been reviewed. It sounds like some additional plans were submitted today and they are not listed here and I don't know if they should be. Ms. Ritter — I'm not sure if they should be, either. My opinion is, those are final details and... Chairperson Wilcox — But aren't those the plans that used in making a determination ?. Ms. Ritter — If you feel like they helped make a determination tonight, then perhaps they should be added. Chairperson Wilcox. — I think that any visual that is presented is used to help... Ms. Ritter — If feel it is adequate, then I suppose it would be appropriate. .l PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock — So could you just read into the record what the plans are and the dates on. them and who prepared them? Ms. Ritter — It is the Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan., It is by Larry Fabbroni, and it is a revision date of 7/17/06. Ms. Brock — Was there a prior version submitted? I don't see it listed. Ms. Ritter — I guess... Mr. Kanter — I think it is a new drawing. Ms. Ritter — I think it is a new drawing. It says revision, but I think the date. Ms. Brock — So Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation Control plan dated 7/17/067 Okay. On page 2, paragraph 2, the same change to add that drawing. Again, list all the plans that have been submitted and review. So just make that same change to add Drainage, Erosion, Sedimentation Control plan dated 7/17/06 and you can add that right before the language that says, all prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni,,P.E., L.S." Paragraph 2c, on page 2, we have the words, "and possibly walkways" when talking infrastructure to be. conveyed to the Town. It sounded from the presentation that all of.the walkways and sidewalks would be privately owned.. Is. that correct? Mr. Fabbroni — We didn't infer one way or the other. I. understood that that was something the Town was discussing, you know, whether it would be the responsibility of the homeowner or the Town, particularly for the section along Birchwood because if the walkway isn't built on Hanshaw then it might take on more of a municipal, regional significance and you don't have a policy yet on who is responsible for sidewalks, mean, if you. ask me, I would tell.you make the homeowner responsible is the easy answer, but it is more of your policy determination than I anything: Ms. Brock — Would Mr. Lucente build them? Mr. Fabbroni — Yes. Ms. Brock — In any event and then if the Town Board decides it doesn't want to accept them or doesn't want to accept some of them at that point the private landowner would be responsible, Mr. Lucente would be responsible? Mr. Fabbroni — I would say be default probably... Ms. Ritter - That would be default to our sidewalk policy, essentially. Ms. Brock — Which is the private landowner? Ms. Ritter —Yes. Ms. Brock — Okay. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Ritter — We have a sidewalk policy that requires the landowner, but we call them ,,walkways when the Town is going own them. Ms. Brock - Okay. So I think it is probably okay to leave that language in for now until we know. So don't make any changes to paragraph 2c. Board Member Conneman — "Possibly" is left in? Ms. Brock — Yes. Just don't make any changes to 2c. 2d, this is getting at the issue of staging that Larry mentioned so I have some proposed changes. Let me know, Sue and Jonathan, if this is consistent with the way you have done things in the past or not. We could just eliminate the words, "roads and" from d so that 2d would just read, "prior to issuance of building permits, the conveyance of the above referenced park addition to the, Town of Ithaca. in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town." So we are only dealing with the park there that we .definitely want that conveyed to the Town before building permits are issued. Then add a new paragraph a and then everything else gets relettered after that, which would read. as follows, "prior to issuance of building permits for dwellings along one of the above referenced road connections or extensions, the conveyance of such road extension or connection to the Town of Ithaca in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town." So the idea is, if they want to build dwellings along one of the proposed road connections or extensions, they have to build that road connection or extension, convey it to the Town and- then they can get building permits for the dwellings along that particular extension or connection. Jonathan and Sue, 1. think you need to let me know if that is consistent with what you have done in the past. Mr. Kanter — I think it is. Ms. Ritter — Yeah. It sounds appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me stop you. Changes acceptable, gentlemen, so far? Board Member Thayer and Board Member Talty indicated changes are okay with them. Mr. Kanter — And sometimes we do and sometimes we don't specify, but there could be a reference to submission of a performance guarantee, in other words an escrow deposit or a letter of credit in lieu of completing entirely to guarantee their completion. That is something we often have done after the fact of Planning Board approval. You might want to include something like that and there is a reference. Ms. Brock — So ... well here we are saying they actually have to convey the road, which. means they have built it and.they have already performed. 62 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2066 Approved Mr. Kanter - The conveyance often times will occur prior to the actual full completion of the road: Ms. Brock - Okay. So maybe after the words, "in a form acceptable. to the Attorney for the Town," we can say, "comma, which conveyance shall include appropriate performance guarantees acceptable to the Director of Engineering." Mr. Kanter. = And Highway Superintendent, Ms. Brock -"Town Highway Superintendent, and Attorney for the Town:" Chairperson Wilcox - Okay: Ms. Brock - Okay? Page 3, paragraph e. iv., this next set of changes all deal with..0okay it will now be relettered f, but on the draft you have right now it says e. These are all the items that have to be included on the revised subdivision plat. Sol was trying to listen and hear the different changes that were being proposed tonight that need to make sure show up on the revised subdivision plat. So subparagraph, it sounds like there will be some traffic calming associated with crosswalks so I thought maybe we should be a little bit more specific to say, "location, delineation, and appearance of all crosswalks and traffic stops, acceptable ' to the Town Highway Superintendent." And maybe we should add because it deals with traffic calming I don't know if it would be the Director of Planning as well. Who wants to look at that to make. sure appropriate traffic calming has been..implemented? Would that be appropriate? Mr. Kanter Sure. Board Member Mitrano - Okay: Board Member Hoffmann Since we still have another meeting on this, why does it refer to all these different staff people rather than to us to make the decision? Usually we have this language only if it appears as conditions on the final approval that we leave the decision to the Town Engineer or the Town Planner and so forth. Ms. Brock — So the revised subdivision plat would come back to you. for a. vote? If you leave it to the Planning Board, that's what would happen. Chairperson Wilcox- It is going to come back to us anyways as part of the final.. Board Member Hoffmann - Right. So why does. it say in this 1or preliminary approval,, for instance,. under iv, acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent as if it is only the Highway Superintendent that would have input on it from now on: Ms. Ritter - That's true, for the revised plat ones versus the easement agreements and things like that that will occur after final subdivision. 63 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock But if they submit it ... so y ou want it to say acceptable to the Planning .Board? Chairperson Wilcox — We don't have to say that. Ms. Brock — But if you don't say that, the they just have to submit that item and they've met the condition. Mr. Kanter —Well, but that is for the final site plan approval. If the board is not satisfied with it, they won't grant final subdivision approval. This condition has to be met prior to submission for final subdivision approval. Ms. Brock — Right. And they'll say they've met it, we've included it. We've met these conditions, literally. Chairperson Wilcox — But Eva is absolutely correct. It is this board's determination to make with the guidance of experts,. such as the Director of Engineering and the Highway Superintendent and the Director of Planning. Ms: Brock — Maybe it should specify, I think, subject to Planning Board approval. Chairperson Wilcox Well, isn't that implied? I mean this is what they have to do in order to be considered for final. Board Member Hoffmann - I wouldn't want it to be understood by everybody, including us, that this ... that these things don't have to come back to us before the final. It can just be submitted later on to be approved by the Planning Director of the Town Attorney or ... as if it doesn't even have to be discussed any more. That is what concerns me. Chairperson Wilcox - And she is absolutely right: Ms. Ritter— You know with iv, I think the reason that we initially had the Town Highway Superintendent. is that he does not come to these meetings and those are sort of technical, like traffic stops would probably more in his area of expertise. Chairperson Wilcox — Its in his area of expertise, but it is still our decision. Ms. Ritter —True. Chairperson Wilcox — It is still this board's decision Ms. Ritter — I think that might have been why. Mr. Kanter - I hate to bring this up, but it is also the Town Board's decision to accept the facilities upon the recommendation of the Highway Superintendent; so if you don't have .- that, then you are not likely to get right back here at some point. Board Member Hoffmann — But tF page, it says, "submission of a Engineering." I thought that we adjustments and so on. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18,206 Approved the Town Board to accept it and then the applicant is sere is more of it. For instance under g, on the -same planting plan details acceptable to the Director of look at it, too, and make suggestions. for planting Board Member Howe Although that management. So it is not general... one is pretty specific to ` the. stormwater Mr. Kanter — There is nothing wrong with adding in number 2 where its all of these, "subject to the following conditions to be met prior. to final subdivision approval, for review and approval of the Planning Board. Then there is absolutely no question that these are not conditions that are automatically met just by submitting them. Ms. Brock - So is Jonathan's change acceptable? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. I'm sorry. Those two over there. Its Larry and .Kevin. Ms. Brock — So then it would be all right, Eva, to leave in the names of these Town staff people? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. presented to.us. think so, as long as its clear that it. also has to be Ms. Brock — It is, with Jonathan's. change. So is number iv :clear now, what the language would be on that? Location, delineation and appearance of all. crosswalks and traffic stops acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent and Direct, or of. Planning? Chairperson Wilcox.— Keep,going. Ms. Brock — Since it sounds like there were some changes to walkways, sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities proposed that should also be shown on the revised subdivision plat so we would . add a new subparagraph viii,. "revised locations and dimensions of all walkways, sidewalks, and other pedestrian facilities, acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent," and I don't know if. the Director of Engineering or Director of Planning would also need to look at this? Mr. Kanter - (not audible) Ms. Brock Just Highway Superintendent. Similarly because it sounds like there has been some change to some of the stormwater facilities in terms of the ditches and other elements, is that correct, ,Larry? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Mr. Fabbroni — We eliminated two ... (not audible)... Chairperson. Wilcox — Yes, there are changes. Ms. Brock — So a new subparagraph ix, "revised locations and dimensions of all stormwater-facilities." Paragraph g, which will now be h, has the planting plan details for the stormwater facilities. We also hear a commitment tonight that at least one tree would be planted on each residential lot so I would just add to the end of g, which will now become h, "and showing type and size of trees to be planted on each residential lot with a minimum of one tree per lot... one tree planted per lot." . Board Member Hoffmann — Was there a _size limit given on the tree, too? Ms. Brock = If that is your pleasure. Chairperson Wilcox — I am comfortable right now. Board, Member Hoffmann - I am trying to remember. Did you say something about size of tree? Mr. Fabbroni - I didn't, but if you give us a chance to go away and come back... Board Member Talty - Think the size of the tree that he is referring to before was 4- inch... Mr. Fabbroni — That we would not take down. Board Member Hoffmann - I just couldn't remember if there was something about the size included for this, too. Ms. Brock — Paragraph i, which will now become j, I think we discussed this. "Submission of written documentation from Cornell University. that it agrees to accept ownership of," we'll add, "lands proposed to be donated as shown on the subdivision plat and ownership of..." and then we continue with what is already there, "stormwater facilities and be responsible for stormwater facility maintenance and repair." Page 4, subparagraph n, which will become o. This is the question that you need to determine whether you to state a minimum diameter of tree that any trees that size or greater would be preserved and.Larry had proposed 4 inches. Board Member Hoffmann — So trees 4 inches or larger would be preserved ?_ Chairperson Wilcox — Within the buffer. Ms. Brock — So preserving the vegetative buffer with a depth of at least 25 feet of trees... lets see. I would probably add language after the... .. Chairperson Wilcox - With a depth of at least Submission of deed restriction or other binding the Town preserving a vegetated buffer with a the English is bad. Sorry, whoever wrote it. R Ms. Brock Sue and I wrote that, thank you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved 25feet of trees? What does that mean? document acceptable to the Attorney for depth of at least 25 feet of trees. Okay, ie English is difficult to read. Chairperson Wilcox - Your welcome. The point is, for trees in that 25 =foot vegetative buffer of diameter 4 inches or more, must be preserved on these lots. Board. Member Hoffmann - I think we need to specify. where the trees are 4 inches in diameter, too. Isn't there a standard? You don't do it at ground level, you do it at... Mr. Kanter - DBH. Diameter Breast High. Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. Could we specify that? Ms.. Brock - So after the reference to lot 72, we could put in, with all trees within the buffer having a diameter of 4 inches or greater measured at diameter. breast height." With all trees within the buffer "being preserved..." Mr. Kanter - To the extent practicable? Ms. Brock - Well... if its deceased or dangerous, but then to the extent practicable tends to open up... Chairperson Wilcox- Open up for misuse. Mr. Kanter - Either way it is going to be hard to enforce. Chairperson Wilcox - Leave it the way it is. Ms. Brock - Which is? Chairperson Wilcox - Without the "to the greatest extent practicable." We don't need. that. Ms. Brock No? Okay.. Chairperson. Wilcox I'm losing touch over there on the far end. Ms. Brock - So paragraph p, which will become q, I would remove the phrase, "and notification to the Army Corp of Engineers of the stormwater detention in the wetlands." Chairperson Wilcox - Because there is no stormwater detention. 67 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock Well, there is. I'm going to move it into a new paragraph, which would become... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Larry, didn't you say there was stormwater detention in the wetlands. What did I miss? Mr. Fabbroni — No. We said that there was stormwater detention in the wetland.. The dyke that would cause that detention is not in the wetland. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. You are right. From the beginning we have talked about using the wetlands as the stormwater management facility. Ms. Ritter — It will be ponded and so they are going to notify the Army Corp of Engineers of that use. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you. Ms. Brock - But I want to pull this out because instead of saying, "prior to the signing of the subdivision plat," I want to have a new paragraph r, which will say, "prior to final subdivision plan approval, notification "...I guess, "submission of notification to the Army Corp of Engineers of stormwater detention in the wetlands and receipt of a letter from the Army Corp of Engineers stating the Corp does not have jurisdiction over this project and further stating that no proposed buildings or other structures are located on wetlands." Mr. Kanter — Could you read it again? Ms. Brock — Sure. I'll read that whole new paragraph r again. "Prior to final subdivision plan approval, submission of a notification to the Army Corp of Engineers of the. stormwater detention in the wetlands and receipt of a. letter from the Army Corp of Engineers stating the Corp does not have jurisdiction. over this project and further stating that no proposed buildings or other structures are located on wetlands." Mr. Fabbroni — The letter is to contain that? Ms. Brock From the Corp. Mr. Fabbroni — The last thing that you said, no buildings or structures will be in the wetland will be in the letter from the Corp? Ms. Brock — Right. Will they put something like that in the letter? Mr. Fabbroni — Bernie could ask them. I mean, we have asked them for the first thing already. 68 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock - Because that's what ... YOU said no buildings or structures would be built on wetlands and we would like... Mr. Carr — Basically what they will do is issue a letter of no jurisdiction, which means that they have reviewed the plans and there is no jurisdiction from the activity. That is what the. letter will say. So it says these are the wetlands on -the property. These are regulated wetlands. If.there's any wetlands that they determine that they are not going to regulate they'll state that and they will. also issue something saying there is nonjurisdiction over this activity. Chairperson Wilcox — Meaning? Mr. Carr — Meaning no fill in wetlands. No wetland disturbance.. That is what that letter will... Mr. Fabbroni - .Creig. covers the last point without saying... Ms.. Brock — Well, them saying they have "no jurisdiction isn't quite the same as saying no structures. or buildings will be built.on wetlands. Mr. Kanter Maybe the Planning Board could have its own condition saying, "no building or structure shall be located within the wetland... in the delineated wetlands." Chairperson.Wilcox — We'll know that from the maps. that we have. Mr. Carr- And their letter will incorporate the figures that we provided to them showing that there is no wetland disturbance, which I think is important. Ms. Brock — So, I'm sorry. What will their letter show? Mr. Carr - What their letter will do is by attachment it'll include the plans that was submitted to them. So their letter will reference the wetland delineation report with the map. It will also reference the figures showing the subdivision plan, the approved subdivision without any wetland impacts. So that will be part of that letter. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of an example of the letters they submit. Ms. Brock - Let's make it a separate requirement then. So paragraph r would just end with, "receipt of a letter from the Army Corp of Engineers stating the Corp does not have jurisdiction over this project: Lets just end r there. Add anew paragraph s... Mr. Kanter — What I suggested is that no buildings or structures shall be located within. the delineated wetlands. I think we want to be a little careful, though, because if Cornell does agree to accept them and they wanted to put in some boardwalk kind of things for educational purposes we wouldn't want to restrict that, but clearly the intent would be that no buildings or residential related structures would be located within the wetland. 69 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 181 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano - Do you want to say habitable? Ms. Brock - So that would actually become ... final conditions to be met prior to final subdivision plan approval, l mean this is actually a condition that is suppose to be met... Mr. Kanter - You know often times...you'll see a lot of these are actually post final subdivision approval that are going to be ongoing conditions: Ms. Brock - So that will get put... carried over into the final. Mr. Kanter - Yeah, if you don't put it now, it is difficult to add later sometimes: Ms. Brock - So a new paragraph s saying, no buildings "... I mean I want to use ' the word "structures" though, because I don't want roads for the development to go in, but I understand what you are saying about the Lab of O. and their desire to maybe put in some walkways and viewing platforms and things like that. Mr. Kanter - Why not "no buildings or structures located without prior approval of the Planning Board ?" Because normally a lot of those things wouldn't necessarily have to come back for site plan approval, but if you include it as a condition I think you could..do that. Ms. Brock So, "no buildings or structures, shall be located on wetlands without Planning Board approval." Chairperson Wilcox - And that covers... Board Member Mitrano - Once the land goes to Cornell, does this still apply? Ms. Brock - Yes, because it is part of the subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox,— That way if Cornell wants .to put something like. walkways over their wetlands they have to come back to us. Mr. Kanter - Can you think of a way to say that it is okay to build .a boardwalk? I don't know that we want to say that either. Board Member Thayer - No. Sounds good. Let them come back. Ms. Brock - I think this is fine because then this gives the Planning Board maximum flexibility. Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin, are you comfortable with that? Board Member Talty - Cornell enjoys coming back to see us.. 70 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 . Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, they like seeing us. Ms. Brock I have one more question. Back to what needed to be included in the revised subdivision plat, do we want to add another requirement that the revised plat show revised dimensions of all roads to accomplish traffic calming acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent? I wasn't quite sure where you ended up with that. Ms. Ritter — So what is it? Ms. Brock So in that list of things that need to be included in the revised subdivision plat, there could be a new subparagraph x,. "revised dimensions of all roads to::. Ms. Ritter — I think that is. required as part of the final site plan checklist. to show us the... Chairperson Wilcox — It is important here because... They will have Msor Brock — But the board was discussing traffic calming and so they wanted to address.. . Chairperson Wilcox. — Absolutely... Ms. Ritter — Oh, I see. You want to see the 10 -foot lanes in that... . Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely. We want to see where the 10 -foot lanes are being proposed, where the color striping is being proposed, where the yellow striping is to. separate the pedestrian lane from the bike lane or the automobile lane r is being proposed. They talked about putting a yellow stripe to delineate ... we want to see all that so we have a chance to review it, you have a chance to review and engineering and transportation... Ms. Ritter I was just saying it is typically in the final site plans. That is all I was saying. Chairperson Wilcox — We discussed it and. I think we want to make sure that it is there because we need to review that still before final, the traffic calming. Ms. Brock — So a new subparagraph x; this is back on page 3, "revised dimensions and appearance of all roads to accomplish traffic calming acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent." So does that cover all of our traffic calming? We've got narrowness. We've got the crosswalk issue and there was. one more. Board Member Mitrano — Raised. Chairperson Wilcox — The potential for raised. Board Member Talty - One was a painted, different colored asphalt and one was raised. 71 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock — Well one of the changes that I .made in the crosswalk .paragraph was location, delineation and appearance of all crosswalks so that appearance, I think, would include the height and things like that. So does that between that -and this one about the dimensions and appearance of the roads, does that cover all . the traffic.. calming issues? Board Member Mitrano —.It does if you think appearance covers Ahat, It wouldn't jump to my mind that it does. Ms. Brock — Do you have another word that you would like to use? Board Member Mitrano — Level? Chairperson Wilcox — Height? Ms. Brock — The word appearance includes where elements are raised. Mr. Hebdon — Vertical profile? Board Member Mitrano — All right. Ms: Brock - Profile. So let's put profile in both the paragraph about crosswalks and this paragraph x. "Location, delineation, appearance, and profile of all crosswalks and traffic stops" and then "revised dimensions, appearance and profile of . all roads... Board Member Hoffmann — Larry mentioned that this is new, these things are very new and they are new to us, too, how to do traffic calming ... so I think it wouldn't hurt if we suggested that the applicant can come in with other suggestions that they might think of for us to... Board Member Talty — But didn't they just say that they did that. with the staff and that you guys filtered out what to bring tonight? Am I correct of what I heard?_ Didn't you guys work together and found... . Ms. Ritter Correct and we found..: Board Member Talty - :..with a lot of synergy.and you decided to bring:... Ms. Ritter - ...that some more complicated methods may not be appropriate for this area and some of them are hassles for snowplows. Board Member Talty — All right. 72 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann - So everything that has been proposed has been discussed and only the ones that... (not audible) ... so if they think of something new between now.. and then they cannot bring it back? Ms. Ritter — Sure. No. Sure, of course they can bring it in. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox Larry and Kevin, are those remaining changes acceptable. Board. Member Thayer and Board Member Talty indicate changes are acceptable. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Susan, are you all set ?' Ms. Brock — Let me just make sure I covered everything. Keep talking. Mr. Kanter — Oh, I thought you were going to summarize them all. Board Member Howe —.No. Chairperson Wilcox — I'd cut her off. Board Member Mitrano — I was hoping you, would read it all through... Board Member Hoffmann — I know we used to read all those... Chairperson Wilcox — I think we should still read them. I think there is a good reason to read them at times. Ms. Brock — On page 3 and 4, we have some parenthetical italized language and that needs to be removed. Chairperson Wilcox —Yes. Absolutely. We figured that out. We're smart. Ms. Brock — Its for the record. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Yeah, there are two sections. You all set, Susan? Ms. Brock - I'm set. Chairperson Wilcox Susan, you all set? Jonathan? Creig? Other questions, discussion from the board? All right. I have a motion. I have a second. - All those in favor please raise your hand. Board Member Talty, Board Member Howe, Board Member Thayer, Board Member Mitrano, Board Member Hoffmann, Chairperson Wilcox raise their hands in favor. 73 Chairperson Wilcox — All those opposed? Board Member Conneman . I will abstain. Chairperson Wilcox - I have one abstention PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved The motion passes. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -071: Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Briarwood 11 50 -1ot Subdivision, Extensions to Sanctuary Dr., Birchwood Drive N., and Birchwood Dr., Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 4.22 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 -lot subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, and along a new spur road north of Sanctuary Drive (to be identified as Lucente Way), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 -8.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The. proposal includes subdividing the +A 47.5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging .4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to Salem Drive Parka The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road, extending Briarwood Drive North to the east, and creating a spur to the north off Sanctuary. Drive. The project also includes the development of stormwater management facilities and walkways. The project is anticipated to be completed over a 10 year period and result in a development mix of one and two - family dwellings. Rocco Lucente, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent, and. 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to the above referenced proposal, on June 20, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 18, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Master Plan" dated 1/12103 with most recent revision 1121106, and three sheets entitled "Subdivision Plat" one dated. 1121106 and revised 5111106, one dated 1121106, and one dated 10128102 and revised 01- 21 -06, and a drawing entitled "Typical Town of Ithaca Highway Crosssections" dated 1116106, four sheets entitled "Water & Sewer Plan & Profiles" dated 5111106, 11/10102, and two dated 1/16106, and four sheets entitled "Highway Plan & Profile"; dated 1116106, 10128102, and two dated 5111106 and . 74 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved "Standard Water Details dated 4111106 and revised 1110103, and "Standard Sanitary Sewer Details ", dated 9110102, "Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan" dated 711712006, all prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and other application material, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 11 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary .. Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control. nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 -lot subdivision located along extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive; and along Lucente Way, as shown on the plans entitled "Master Plan dated 1/12/03 with most recent revision 1121106, . and three sheets entitled "Subdivision Plat one dated 1121106 and revised 5111106, one dated 1121106, and one dated 10128102 and revised 01- 21 -06, and a drawing entitled "Typical. Town of Ithaca Highway. Crosssections" dated 1116106, . four sheets entitled "Water & Sewer Plan & . Profiles" dated 5111106, 11/10102, and two dated 111,6/06, and four, sheets entitled "Highway Plan & Profile ", dated 1116106, 10128102,- and two dated 5111106 and "Standard Water Details dated 4111106 and revised 1110103, and "Standard Sanitary Sewer Details ", dated 9110102, "Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ", dated 711712006, all prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., subject to the following conditions to be met prior to Final Subdivision Approval, . for review and approval of the Planning Board, unless specifically noted otherwise: a. Submission of evidence of the necessary approval by the Tompkins County Health Department on the final plat, prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, and b. Submission of an approximate phasing plan for the development outlining the sequence and timing of the proposed residences, roads, and.. stormwater facilities, and C. Receipt of approval by the Town Board for the Town to accept the location and concept of conveyance of the extensions of Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North (to be renamed Beechwood Drive), Birchwood Drive, the new Lucente Way spur road, the parcel addition to .Salem Drive Park, and other public infrastructure including sewer and water mains, and (possibly) walkways, and 75 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved d. Prior to issuance of building permits, the conveyance of the above referenced park addition to the Town of Ithaca in. a. form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, and e. Prior to issuance of building permits for dwellings along one of the above referenced road connections or extensions, the completion, of and conveyance of such road extension .or connection to the Town of Ithaca in a. form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town and subject to. the approval of the Director of Engineering and Town Highway Superintendent, which conveyance shall include, if determined to be necessary, appropriate performance. guarantees in lieu of completion of said road connections or extensions acceptable to the Director of Engineering, Town Highway Superintendent, and Attorney for the Town, and f. Submission of a revised subdivision plat showing the following: il the acreage and location of land in each parcel to be donated to Cornell University Lab of Ornithology, and the acreage and location of land in the addition to Salem Drive Park, and ii. the locations and dimensions of easements providing the Town of Ithaca (and Cornell University, if it holds responsibility for maintenance) access to all stormwater facilities, including forebays, ditches, berms, and the like, and iii: the locations and dimensions of sewer and water easements to the Town of Ithaca for Town access to Lots 60, 61, 63, and 73, and IV. location, delineation, appearance, and profile of all crosswalks and traffic stops, acceptable to the Town .Highway Superintendent and Director of Planning, and V. the correct map revision date An each drawing, and V1. location of the areas subject to deed restrictions or restrictions imposed through other mechanisms on Lots 33, 34, 35, 36; 37, 38, 39, 51, 52 53, 55, 56, 57; 58, 59, 613 67, 70, 71, 72, as described in subparagraphs n and o below, and VII, elimination of the proposed traffic island on Sanctuary Drive, and viii. revised locations and dimensions of all walkways, sidewalks, and other pedestrian facilities acceptable to the Town Highway Superintendent, and, ix. revised locations and dimensions of all stormwater facilities, and 76 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved X, revised dimensions, appearance, and profile of all roads to accomplish traffic calming acceptable, to the Town Highway. Superintendent. g. Submission of engineering details, acceptable to the Director of Engineering, for all stormwater facilities, including forebays, ditches, . and berms, and h. Submission of planting plan details, acceptable to . the Director of Engineering, showing vegetated benches and wetland plantings for all stormwater facilities, and showing type and size of trees to be planted on each residential lot with a minimum of 1 tree planted per lot, and i. Submission of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, acceptable to the Director of Engineering, and j. Submission of written documentation from Cornell University.that it agrees to accept ownership of lands proposed to be donated to it as shown on the subdivision plat, and ownership of stormwater facilities, and be responsible for stormwater-facility maintenance and repair, and k. Submission of a draft easement, acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, providing access to the Town of Ithaca (and to Cornell University, if it holds responsibility for maintenance) to all storm. water: management facilities, prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board,. Chair, and 1. Submission of a draft easement, acceptable to the Director of Engineering and Attorney for the Town, to provide the Town of Ithaca access to the Town's sewer lines on Lots 61, 63, and 73, prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, and M. Submission of a draft easement and maintenance agreement between Lots 60 and 61 for shared private water line access, use, and repair, acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, prior to signing of the, subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, and n. Submission of a deed restriction or other binding document, acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, to prohibit development or disturbance of the wetland portion of Lot 53, prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, and o. Submission of a deed restriction or other binding document, acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, preserving a vegetated buffer with a depth of at least 25 feet of trees, along the back of the following lots: 33, 34, 35, 36, 77 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 . . Approved 37, 38, 39, 51, 52 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61; 67, 707 71, 72, with all trees within the buffer having a diameter. of 4 inches or greater measured at diameter breast height, being preserved, prior to signing of the subdivision . plat by the Planning Board Chair, and P, Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering and Attorney for the Town, prior to signing of. the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, which agreement shall include an inspection and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities to include management of wetland plantings to insure continued plant viability and continued plant functioning, and q. Submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent and Pollution Prevention. Plan for NYSDEC, prior to signing . of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair,. and r. Prior to, final subdivision plan approval, submission of notification to the Army Corps of Engineers of the stormwater detention in the wetlands, and receipt of a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating the . Corps does not have jurisdiction over this project, and S, No buildings or structures shall. be located on the delineated wetlands without Planning Board approval, and t. Submission for signing by the Planning. Board Chair of an original or mylar copy of the final plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of.a filing receipt from the Tompkins County Clerk's Office showing proof of filing of the final plat, prior to the issuance of building permits, and u. Consolidation of the small parcel of land with the Town- owned Salem Drive Park parcel within six months of filing of the subdivision plat, and . V, Prior to the issuance of building permits, submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department of filing receipts from the Tompkins County Clerk's Office showing proof of filing of the 'easements and the restrictions prohibiting development and preserving buffers as described above. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 Approved ABSTAIN: Conneman The vote on the motion was carried. Chairperson Wilcox We have granted preliminary approval with, I hate to count the number of conditions. You have a lot more work to .do. I want to thank the audience for their patience and being quiet and understanding. I want to thank. the board. We already got through other business. We took care of everything else: I need a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hebdon — You tabled August first: Chairperson Wilcox.— That's right. I move cancellation of the August 1st meeting. Board Member Mitrano - Second. Chairperson, Wilcox — Seconded by Tracy: All those in favor? Board,— Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Accepted. You'll notify the media. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion, Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the meeting at 10:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, V0 Carrie Coates W i more Deputy Town Clerk 79 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 18, 2006 Fora ►It 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Review of a sketch plan for the proposed Ithaca College Gateway Building located on the Ithaca College campus north of Dillingham Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41-1 - 30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is fora new 4- level, +/- 50,500 gross square foot building for the Office of Admissions, the Office of Human Resources and the college's executive offices. The project will also include new stormwater facilities, lighting, landscaping, and changes to the adjacent parking area and walkways. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LP, Agent, 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Green Heron Farm, 1457 Trumansburg Road. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued operation of the existing equestrian facility located at 1457 Trumansburg. Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1 -27, Low Density Residential Zone. The current +/- 10 -acre horse facility boards horses, trains horses, and provides lessons. The equestrian facility was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals which . expired on January 24, 2006. Linna Dolph & David Dunbar, Owners /Applicants. 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Buttermilk Falls Bed & Breakfast, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road: 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued operation of the existing Buttermilk Falls Bed and Breakfast located at. 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone. The Bed and Breakfast was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals which expired on May 21, 2006. Margaret Rumsey, Owner /Applicant. 7:55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 -lot subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70- 10 -3.5 and 734- 8.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the +/- 47.5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0.4 acres in size) with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel to be added to the Salem Drive Park. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, and connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker . Woods Road, The project also includes the development of new stormwater management facilities and walkways. The project is anticipated to be completed over a 10 -year period . and result in a development of one and two - family dwellings. Rocco Lucente, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Tuesday. Julv 18. 2006 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, "July 18, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued operation of the existing equestrian facility located at 1457 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1 -27, Low Density Residential Zone.. The current +/- 10 -acre horse facility boards horses, trains horses, and provides lessons. The equestrian facility was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals which expired on January 24, 2006, Linna Dolph & David Dunbar, Owners /Applicants: 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed continued operation of the existing Buttermilk Falls Bed and Breakfast located at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 38 -1 -2, Low Density, Residential Zone. The Bed and;Breakfast was previously operating under a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals which expired on May 21, 2006. Margaret Rumsey, Owner /Applicant. 7:55 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 50 -lot subdivision located along new extensions to Sanctuary Drive, Birchwood Drive North, and Birchwood Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70= 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 -8.22, Medium Density. Residential Zone. The proposal includes, subdividing the +/- 47.5 acres into 47 residential parcels (averaging 0.4 acres in size)` with two parcels totaling approximately 25 acres to be donated to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and one small parcel. to be added to the Salem Drive Park.. The proposal involves connecting Sanctuary Drive with Birchwood Drive North, and connecting Birchwood Drive with Sapsucker Woods Road. The project also includes the development of new stormwater management facilities and walkways. The project is anticipated to be completed over a 10 -year period and result in a development of one and two- family dwellings. Rocco Lucente, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L. S., Agent. 9:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special. Approval for the proposed Cornell University Grounds Department Facilities Improvement Project located between Palm Road and Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 64- 1 -1 and 644-2, Planned Development Zone No. 9. The proposal involves improving existing gravel driveways with a new gravel surface, constructing new gravel pads for storage of topsoil, sand, gravel, compost, nursery materials, yard waste, . and construction debris, improving stormwater facilities, and planting a vegetative buffer between NYS Route 366 and the grounds facilities.. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert Chiang, LS, 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 impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Dated: Monday, July 10, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 Wednesdaay; Juty 12; 2006 THE ITHACAG10Uf2NA4 C' rss' §NYC attes mwsize) wdh two par ; Is totahng4approximately 25 ocresuro be ifonated fo �fhe Corn Labsof QrmthoF ogy,xand one sm611 ppaareel z to�be� added, %thezSalem Dme,- PoFkTheproposal evolves cYonnechngtSanctu aryrDr rchwood r Dnve 'Northand:connecF Kin. BirchwoodDiive with Sapsucke[aWoods Road The project Is rncludes thedevelopment Hof phew• "': - stormwafer management fa cNties dnd3walkwaysThe :. - pro mpl lect41 s'anficipated�tobe�. coe ed overga 1 Qyear peri od and result in aide Welopmentmof one�and M%a-" Famr y�.dwelhngs ��,�Rocco Lucente �CW✓ner /Ajiphcant, -_> Lawrence P�Fabbrom�P E zU S�`Q9ent "R.,Mff Consideration; ofPrelimuiary�bnd hFinal cSite`�Plart`pp,4pprovaland:= propo�ased Coprr n' IF Umvers, Grounds Departme`t Facd�: . Pies Impprrovement Protect la` icate'd�betweenPalmfRood andaDgdenRoad "�NYS . Route'3 6) Tow oFrl acc r�Taic� Pace�� No's r64�1�1 . andt6�41�2 Plan D'e' ev opment Zon`e`No 9 The= proposaI im rov' --, mgraexistmg graiel rnie �ways�withFa new gravel�sur : face, sconsfructirignew gravel >pads for s`torageof; topsoil�'aandgigvel;�corrF �' apost ��nursery� materials yard waste, =andconsfruc_> fion Xdebns #� mprovin x 4w -50 A gg stormwater' n pI itmg;aavegetat ve buffer 6elweenFNYS Routes�366X. andtheagrounds;faclifies Cornell �U rversi Ctwner% licant — Robert Chwng Agent taidjPlannmg,Bocirdwill =i �at�sbid�fimesand� said `place hear all perssonss in. supportxof4such4riatteys of obled1 ns thereto - Persons may ajipear by3agent or�m < pers�onya; IndnnduMals "�w th ' . visual impairments >heanng: TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday July 18, 2006 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. . Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: July 10, 2006 Date of Publication: July 12, 2006 Sandra Polce,.Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 12th day of July 2006. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No, 01CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 0 ,