Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2008-02-05FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2008 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Rod Howe Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, Larry Thayer, Susan Riha, Hollis Erb and Fred Wilcox Absent: George Conneman STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Ritter, Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Chris Balestra, Planner; for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS: Ed Wilson and Tim Peer, Cornell University Steve Byers, East Hill Office Building, Cornell University Frank Santelli, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors Bill Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way Gail Carson, 111 Rachel Carson Way Frank Santelli, TG Miller Engineers & Surveyors Michelle Palmer, Landscape Architect George Wiedmaier, 2419 Shelter Lane, Bowie, MD Grace Sackman, 1585 Slaterville Road Diane Florini and James W. Hamilton, 1603 Slaterville Road Sue Gillis, 112 Burns Road David Parks, 200 East Buffalo Street Assistant Director of Susan Brock, Attorney Mark Parker, Keystone Associates, 229 -231 State St., Binghamton CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Howe opens the meeting at 7:05 p.m., having accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 28, 2008 and January 30, 2008 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 January 28, 2008. Chairperson Howe states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. pas PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 2 Haines 2 -Lot Subdivision Chairperson Howe — The first item that we were going to talk about was the consideration for extending the time period for the Haines 2 -lot subdivision. That has been withdrawn by the City Attorney and I believe that they may come back to us and go through the sort of formal process once again because the deadlines are very old. So, Susan, anything else you want to say? Ms. Brock — Under the Town, New York Town Law, this Board has the ability to grant certain extensions. The conditional approval expires after 180 days if the conditions haven't been met and New York Town Law says this Board can grant two additional 90- day extensions. When you add it all together, you end up with 360 days total for the applicant to meet the conditions. We are beyond the 360 day period already because it's been well more than a year since the conditional approval was granted. So we do not have the legal authority to grant any extensions at this point. This does not preclude the City and the Haines land owner from coming back and applying for subdivision again and going through the entire process again. Chairperson Howe — Any questions? Okay. Moving on to the next agenda item, Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the Cornell University Combined Heat and Power Plant Project located to the south of the Central Heating Plant on Dryden Road Chairperson Howe — We have the materials before us that I think Jon wrote up and also, I think that at everyone's table was the letter from Tom Parsons about the fire department access and turnaround, and the revised language for the proposed resolution. Okay. I don't know if ... would you like to make a statement, give us an update. The materials are pretty clear, but would you like to.... Ed Wilson and Tim Peer, Cornell University Mr. Wilson — We were just here, the 22nd of January, I believe, so I will be more than happy for any of the new members or the public to go over a project overview if you would like ... I don't know if there is any interest in doing that again. Chairperson Howe — I think we will just see if there are any questions. We have copies of the Zoning Board Resolutions in front of us and we know that there were two issues. One that is now addressed by the Tom Parsons' letter and then, what you might say is just a word about this sprinkler variance and how we are hoping to address that. Mr. Peer — We did submit a variance for sprinkling the plant expansion. My initial understanding was that the local ordinance required full sprinkler coverage and looking at the State Building Code, we're thinking that there may be some good reasons not to do that. But in conversations since then with Kristie Rice who's the Code Enforcement Officer, we found that as long as we have what is called a "code- compliant" system, then a variance would not be required. And so we're going to fully design that system. We're going to review it with. her and Tom Parsons to get their buy -in for code - compliance, and that's what we're going to do. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 3 Chairperson Howe - Any questions about... Board Member Wilcox - The only question I have is in the drafted language, revised language that's in Jon Kanter's email, it talks about "full" building permit. That implies to me ... I thought there were just "building permits" now I guess there are types of building permits? Mr. Kanter - Two or three, and Tim, you can feel. free to add on your discussions with Kristie Rice after, but my understanding is the building process is going to be phased in this particular situation so that the first phase will be a permit to allow site construction to begin, no buildings. The next phase will be for a foundation permit, which is another type within the building permit context. And then the "full" refers to a full building permit for any actual building permits that will be constructed and that's why 1 use the term "full ". Board Member Wilcox - Full as opposed to partial, if you will. Mr. Kanter - Yeah, partial or preliminary or whatever else you would call it. Does that sound about right? Mr. Peer - Sounds exactly right. I could tell you why we are doing that if you're interested or... Board Member Wilcox - No... Board Member Riha - I had emailed Jonathan about confusion to me on resolution lb and d and you were going to talk about that. Mr. Kanter - Yeah I was hoping Dan., maybe if Dan gets here he could explain a lot better than I can, but, from my knowledge of how we've approached these, condition b deals with an operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities which really is more technically oriented in terms of how the facilities are going to be maintained, how they'll be cleaned out, how they fit together, all those types of things. Condition d is the Operation Maintenance and Reporting Agreement which is a separate item that we apply to situations where the applicant as a private owner will continue to own and maintain the facility and that's not always the case. Sometimes the Town might take over a facility and that's something we will be talking about a lot more as these stormwater laws go into effect soon. So the, so what's referred to in d as the agreement is more in the line of an agreement that the applicant provides to the Town saying that if we the applicant don't do what we're supposed to do, if we don't maintain the facility properly or if repairs are necessary and we fail to do them, the Town has the right to come in and fix the problem and in addition to charge the applicant for whatever the Town's costs are. Board Member Riha - And it sounds like at a certain point the expectation is there's going to be an umbrella agreement that covers all the stormwater treatment for Cornell. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 4 Mr. Kanter — Yeah, and I don't know if there's anyone from Cornell who might know more about the status of that umbrella stormwater agreement, and might want to update the Board on that ... I know it's getting close to being available. Board Member Wilcox — Mr. Walker will appear through the door momentarily. Steve Byers, East Hill Office Building, Cornell University We submitted an agreement that was sort of like a campus -wide because it sort of made sense to have access to all our facilities and we don't have the same sort of boundaries that some people do and I think Ms. Brock has reviewed that and provided some comments back and we are still having a little back - and -forth to confirm...and here's Dan to talk more about it. Ms. Brock — I've reviewed it and provided comments to Town Staff and the Town Staff are reviewing those, so actually it has not gone back to you yet. Board Member Riha — So that agreement will eventually supersede any of these. Mr. Byers —.Simultaneous with this of course, you are enacting your own laws and I don't think they are finalized yet. Mr. Walker — Yeah, we're still.. Mr. Beyer — So until you enact all of your laws, it's hard to know if this agreement complies with them all so we are sort of stuck in the middle of some of that I think. Ms. Brock — Because there's no need for the agreement to be finalized before the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, my anticipation is there wouldn't be a separate agreement just for this facility, but the umbrella agreement will be in place well before they are ready to have a certificate of occupancy issued. Mr. Kanter — And then, while we're talking about that, the other interesting thing I mentioned in my response to Susan was that a portion of this stormwater facility is located within the City of Ithaca, not in the Town, so I'm not clear on how this agreement would apply to the portion in the City and I had hoped to hear back from Joanne Cornish at the City. I know their resolution of approval did not address stormwater as such and I was hoping to hear back from her as to how she thought we should approach that. Mr. Byers — Yeah, they do ... the law though has been passed for stormwater so they have a very similar type of very comprehensive law about stormwater and I, of course, it's kind of new to them too, but, we'll have the same kind of agreement with the City as well. Mr. Kanter — I think that will be rectified once we have this umbrella agreement in place anyway and it will refer to the specifics of that facility or that part of the facility that the Town will have access to so I don't think it will be a problem to keep that condition in there. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg, 5 Chairperson Howe — Dan, Jon was just addressing lb and d in the resolution... you don't know what he just said, but if you want to add something... . Mr. Kanter — I said what you told me to say.... Board Member Riha — Jonathan said that Dan is both the Town Engineer and the Director of Engineering... Mr. Kanter — We like to put them both in one... Mr. Walker — Yeah ... I didn't think there was any real controversy on this one so... Mr. Kanter — No, I was just clarifying. Mr. Walker — In fact, we just got the revised SWPP that covers the whole area, the yard improvements and everything else. We're reviewing that but I don't see any problems... Board Member Hoffmann — I remember talking about the red pines last time and we don't have the minutes yet so I don't remember exactly what it was I was asking about, but when I went to the landscaping plan this time, I don't see any red pines on the drawing showing where the plants are going to be but they are listed in the list of plants, so now I'm confused. Board Member Wilcox — Which sheet are you looking at? Board Member Hoffmann — This is Plan 6113 -2506, Mr. Peer — The park plans there, to the right, it doesn't orient you that well but that's just east of the substation where you had previously asked that we find a way to put some trees in. So we had to steal away some pasture from athletics so we wouldn't have the horses eating the trees. Board Member Hoffmann — All right, fine. I was just wondering what on earth had I been talking about last time if they weren't on the plan. Chairperson Howe — And Hollis, you see they addressed the issue you brought up last time about the units... Board Member Erb — Yes I did, thank you. Chairperson Howe — Any other questions? Over here ... This is a public hearing, is there anyone from the public that wants to address this issue? Oh, I didn't open the public hearing ... I will open the public hearing at 7:15 ... is there anyone who would like to address this issue? I will close the public hearing at 7:16. Any other questions? Would someone like to move the resolution? Board Member Riha — I'll move the resolution. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 6 Board Member Thayer — I'll second. Chairperson Howe — Are there additions, changes? We know that there are... Mr. Kanter — One change I would suggest is deleting condition a, since we received the letter from Tom Parsons of the fire department, so then change all of the lettering of the remaining conditions. And then if okay with the Board changing the language in condition c., now b., to the wording that I recommended... why don't I just read it through so, the full condition c, would read "Granting by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). of any necessary sprinkler variance for the main CCHPP building addition of issuance by the ZBA or Code Enforcement Officer of a determination that no such variance is necessary prior to issuance of any full building permits" deleting the word "for", then continuing on with, "relating to construction of the building addition in which the sprinkler requirements are still at issue in the CCHPP project, and " Chairperson Howe — Susan, any other changes? Ms. Brock — That's fine. Chairperson Howe — All those in favor, . say aye ... any oppositions? ... any abstentions? ... it is passed unanimously. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2008 - 010 Cornell University Combined Power & Heating Project Final Site Plan Approval Tax Parcel No's. 63 -1 -5, 63 -1 -8.1 and 63 -1 -8.2 (Town) Central Heating Plant, Dryden Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 5, 2008 Motion made by Susan Riha, seconded by Larry Thayer, WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Combined Heat and Power Plant ( CCHPP) project located to the south of the Central Heating Plant on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63 -1 -5, 63 -1 -8.1 and 63- 1 -8.2, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 65 -3 -1.2 and 65 -3- 1.1, Light Industrial and Low Density Residential (LDR) Zones. The proposed main addition will occupy a footprint of approximately 18,000 square feet to house two combustion turbine generators which will be matched with dual - pressure heat recovery steam generators. The project will also include a new +/- 3,200 square foot employee support addition, two new emergency diesel generators, an aqueous ammonia storage facility, and other site improvements. -Cornell. Univers.ity,. Owner /Applicant; Tim Peer,_P.E., -Agent ,_and_ 2. This is a Type I Action for which the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, acting as lead agency in coordinating the environmental review, PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 7 has on November 6, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on January 22, 2008, did grant preliminary site plan approval and a special permit for the proposed project as described above; and 4. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, on January 28, 2008, granted . height variances for portions of the CCHPP within the Town of Ithaca, and granted a sprinkler variance for the proposed condenser building, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 22, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including "Project Information Submitted for Site Plan Review" for the "Cornell Combined Heat and Power Project ( CCHPP), prepared by Cornell University Facilities Services, date stamped received December 5, 2007; "Site Plan Approval Documents — Supplemental Information, Cornell Combined Heat and Power Project", prepared by Cornell University Facilities Services, dated December 14, 2007; "Hydrologic Analysis for the Proposed Combined Heat and Power Project, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Tompkins County", prepared by Cornell University, date stamped received December 5, 2007; a series of Site Plan Drawings, titled "Cornell Combined Heat and Power ", with original dates of Oct. 07 and Dec. 07, all reissued for site plan approval dated Dec. 4, 2007 and prepared by GIE Niagara Engineering Inc., PC, including Drawings No. 6113 -2500, 6113 -25011 6113 -2503, 6113 -2505, 6113 -25069 6113 -2508, 6113 -2509, 6113 -2510, 6113- 2511, 6113 -2512; a series of Site Plan Drawings, titled "Cornell Combined Heat and Power', with original dates of Oct. 07 and Dec. 07, all reissued for site plan approval dated Dec. 13, 2007 and prepared by GIE Niagara Engineering Inc., PC, including Drawings No. 6113 - 2501 -A, 6113 -25027 6113 -25041 6113 -2507, 6113 -2514, and 6113 -2515; and other application materials, and 6. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 5, 2008, has reviewed and accepted as adequate additional application materials, including "Additional Information Submitted for Final Site Plan Review" for the Cornell Combined Heat and Power Project ( CCHPP), dated January 25, 2008, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Combined Heat and Power Plant project, as shown in the application materials referenced in "Whereas #'s 5 and 6" above, subject to the following conditions to be accomplished prior to issuance of any building permit, unless otherwise noted: a. Submission of an operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering prior to issuance of any building permits, and PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 8 b. Granting by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) of any necessary sprinkler variance for the main CCHPP building addition, or issuance by the ZBA or Code Enforcement Officer of a determination that no such variance is necessary, prior to issuance of any full building permits relating to construction of the building addition in which the sprinkler requirements are still at issue in the CCHPP project, and c. Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca for review and approval of the Town Engineer and Attorney for the Town, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, and d. Submission of documentation of all necessary approvals from county, state, and /or federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, and e. Submission of final site, utility, and stormwater management facility engineering details and construction specifications for review and approval of the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any building permit, and f. All lighting fixtures shall be fully - shielded to reduce glare and off -site spillage of light, and comply with Chapter 173 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Outdoor Lighting. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Hoffmann, Thayer, Riha, Wilcox and Erb. Nays: None Absent: Conneman The motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe — The next agenda item is Consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding amending the EcoVillage Special Land Use District to allow bed & breakfast facilities. Chairperson Howe — Is there someone here who would like to make a brief presentation and ... Bill Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way Which is up at Eco Village and just so you know, since I am also a Town Board Member, when this matter comes back to the Town Board, I am recusing myself from voting- on -it. - - -- -- — - - - - -- I believe you have some background information and so, just so you know, I do have with me tonight Ms. Gail Carson, who is the proprietor of the Wild Goose Bed & PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 9 Breakfast and Mr. Elan Shapiro who is the . proprietor of the Frog's Way. Bed & Breakfast, if you have any questions for them. So, the bed and breakfasts have been operating for a number of years up at Eco Village and we discovered recently, through the Town's Code Enforcement Officer, that under our SLUD, we actually had not written in bed and breakfast as a primarily use so in order to grandfather these bed and breakfasts in, we are requesting a change to our SLUD to include bed and breakfasts and I have to apologize, I am a little under the weather tonight, so my mind is a little muddled, but, I will be-happy to answer any questions you have. Chairperson Howe — Questions? Can we come up with at least one question... Board Member Wilcox — Okay, I got one. Are the Bed & breakfasts operating today? Mr. Goodman — Yes, they are. Well, not actually "today ", winter is a very slow time so ... but they don't have many visitors in the wintertime up there, mostly in the summertime. Board Member Hoffmann — I had some comments. In general, I think the idea of bed and breakfasts are a very good one, to make use of extra space in homes and a lot of older homes in towns like Ithaca have a lot of extra space in the form of bedrooms. But I have some little bit of concern about it in EcoVillage because the premises of this community, the premise of this community is to try to make it as small and energy efficient as possible, so, I thought that the living units were small enough that there wouldn't be too many spare bedrooms, and I find it a little surprising that in both of these cases that you mention, there are two extra bedrooms, in both cases, that are being used for bed and breakfast purposes. And I also wondered, would there be a limit on how many such bed and breakfasts there would be, in EcoVillage, and that's related to extra parking spaces that might be needed and I also thought that the common houses would have space for visitors ... I just don't remember, I was in on this from the beginning but I just don't remember and I see from the papers we got that there are offices and such...dining rooms and kitchen and so on, for common activities that you can not do so easily in your living unit, you can do it there, and I wanted to ask if there are any guestrooms in the common houses or if there might be plans for putting guestrooms in common houses? Mr. Goodman — To address your first question, yeah, in general the houses up at EcoVillage have been designed to be smaller than your typical American house today in terms of square footage and one of the ideas is that you can make the houses smaller because you do have the common house with a large dining room and kitchen and some laundry facilities and other things that you share with your neighbors. But over time, of course, families move in and out, so a family that might have built a house with three bedrooms might have moved out and sold it to somebody who only needs one bedroom. A single person or a couple. So we do have a number of houses that have changed hands over the years where people have ended up with extra bedrooms. And the limit, currently .we just have one bed and breakfast per neighborhood. If other people wanted to develop a bed and breakfast, because we are a cooperative PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 10 corporation and so the residents are actually lease holders to the units, they don't actually own the real estate, if they wanted to actually do anything like that, they would have to come to the corporation, the cooperative and because we make decisions by consensus, everybody there has to agree to allowing something new like that to happen. So I don't think we'll ever get the situation where we will have a flood of bed and breakfasts. There is, and this is not something that is before you tonight, but at some point in the future, and it might be the future, meaning a year or two, we do hope, at some point up at EcoVillage to have some housing specifically for visitors. One of the endeavors we have always dreamed of having at EcoVillage is an education center that will bring the people from all over the country and the world to learn about sustainability and so we, at some point we'll probably try to do some building that is dedicated housing for interns, visitors, students who are there, so that there will be more availability of space on the property. But as I said, those ideas are not fully formed yet and so, at some point, we'll come for amendment of the SLUD to include a lot of things that we'd like to do up there. Chairperson Howe — Bill, I think you, can you address Eva's question about, can people stay overnight in the commons room. Do you have any facilities in the commons? Mr. Goodman — We do have some rooms.at the common room. The common houses have sofa - futons in them, like sitting rooms, so if there is a need for someone to crash they could, you know, open up the sofa -futon in the sitting rooms and crash there, but that's just limited space. And we actually do get quite a lot of visitors. I don't know if any of you saw the Time magazine article on us back in December, but we are constantly getting press and a greater stream of visitors coming in so even with those sofa - futons, we don't have nearly enough spaces at EcoVillage without the bed and breakfasts. Chairperson Howe — Eva, I think that the cover memo also viewed the case that one of the educational missions is for people to visit and this allows people to do that in a nicer setting than pulling out the futon in the common house. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, and I'm not against bed and breakfast in principle, here, or ... but especially in big olds houses that maybe you couldn't preserve, they have a historical value, and you might not be able to preserve them if you didn't allow apartments or bed and breakfasts and so on. It's just that the whole concept of EcoVillage was a little different and I wonder whether this idea of it being a communal decision within EcoVillage who gets to have. a bed and breakfast and who doesn't, is compatible with what we might think is a good thing for the Town because it does have to do with parking and certain other things too, and traffic. Maybe we are not sure that it is a good idea to have a lot of visitors coming in and out of there who also stay there. I understand the educational part of it, but does it mean that people have to live there? I'm just- throwing this -out-as questions. Chairperson Howe — I'm actually having a hard time understanding what your concern is because to me., it just makes so much sense that, but, is it a concern that anyone else has? PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 11 Board Member Wilcox — My feeling, it's another home -based business, whether you're a professional, you're a computer engineer, you're another type of engineer; you're a lawyer, you're and accountant....you run a, bed and breakfast. It's a home -based business, we should look favorably upon these in areas such as this. Your comment about, you know, the Board of, the Board would determine who can have a bed and breakfast, that's their problem, not our problem, not at all. Board Member Thayer — Plus there should be a lot of parking up there. I don't think that's a problem. Mr. Goodman — And because currently there is only one bed and breakfast in each neighborhood, there's no more than two extra cars if both of their rooms are full, so we do have enough visitor parking to handle that level. Board Member Hoffmann _ Yeah, and I understand the current situation is not a problem, but if you're talking about expanding on that, I guess my concern would be how much will that be expanded and what will that mean. Mr. Goodman — Yeah, definitely in the future when we do want to have an education center and a visitor's center, we will need to add more parking and that's stuff that will come to you with, and as I said, probably in a few years, when we're ready to move forward with those ideas. Chairperson Howe Any other ... so Eva's concern has been noted ... any other questions? Board Member Wilcox — I was sitting here doodling, and we had the first residence group, which was Frog and the second neighborhood group, which was Song, then we're going to have the third homeowners group, which is Thug ... (laughter),... Mr. Goodman — Originally we were calling them Throng, and people thought that sounded a little too like it was going to be too crowded up there ... so we started calling them Thong, and some people didn't like that, so there actually is a group of people who have started to talk about forming a third neighborhood now, and they've decided to call themselves TREE ... Third Residential Entity at EcoVillage... Board Member Wilcox — My reason for asking was is there on -going discussion about starting up the third set.. Mr. Goodman — Yeah, as with any co- housing development, it seems like the initial stages take a long, long time. There have been some folks who have been meeting about it. A lot of those initial folks have actually left and moved on and new folks have come in, so I would say it's still probably a couple of years before they're ready to bring anything to the Planning Board, but, discussions have started about that. Board Member Wilcox — Good; it's healthy for the community. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 1,2 Board Member Hoffmann - I just want to add so that there's no misunderstanding, I think the whole idea of what EcoVillage is doing is great. I have always been for it. I just had this slight concern that the Town shouldn't get into something that was maybe not a good idea. Chairperson Howe - Gail, if you wanted to add something, just come up to the microphone please. Gail Carson, 111 Rachel Carson Way Owner of the Wild Goose B & B at EcoVillage. My guests ask me if I am related to Rachel Carson, unfortunately I'm not; I wish I were. I wanted to speak to the small footprint on the land that you were talking about ... two extra bedrooms and all that. When I'm taking my guests up to their rooms in my B &B, I say, "when you see your rooms, you'll know why we call this a small footprint on the land." There isn't even room for a baby /toddler crib or else the walking space is gone beside the bed. These are postage stamp rooms. So I just wanted to make that clear. Board Member Hoffmann - I am aware of that because I saw the initial plans. Chairperson Howe - Thank you. Any other questions before we open the public hearing? Okay, the public hearing is opened at 7:31 p.m. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this issue? We will close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Is there someone who would like to move the motion? Board Member Erb - I'll move it. Board .Member Wilcox - I'll second it. Chairperson Howe - Hollis, seconded by Fred. All those in favor? Any opposed? Any abstentions? It's unanimous. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2008 - 011 Recommendation to Town Board Regarding a Proposed Local Law Amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Entitled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts ", Adding Bed - and - Breakfast as a Permitted Principal Use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use District No. 8 Town of Ithaca Planning Board February 5, 2008 Motion made by Hollis Erb, seconded by Fred Wilcox. --WHEREAS:-EcoVillage at -Ithaca, Inc. on behalf of all of the EcoVillage entities has submitted an application to the Town of Ithaca to amend the EcoVillage Special Land Use District No. 8 to allow bed - and - breakfasts, and PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 13 WHEREAS, a draft local law amending Chapter. 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts ", adding bed - and - breakfast as a permitted . principal use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use District No. 8 has been prepared, and WHEREAS: The Town Board has reviewed the above - described proposed local law at its meeting on January 7, 2008 and has referred this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter and has reviewed and discussed this proposed local law at its meeting on February 5, 2008, and WHEREAS: The Planning Board finds that bed - and- breakfasts are consistent with one of EcoVillage's main missions, which is to educate the public about sustainable living, by allowing visitors to stay on the grounds, and that bed - and - breakfasts are compatible with the purposes of Special Land Use District No.8, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the proposed local law amending Chapter 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code, entitled "Zoning: Special Land Use Districts ", adding bed - and - breakfast as a permitted principal use in EcoVillage's Special Land Use District No. 8. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Hoffmann, Thayer, Riha, Wilcox and Erb. Nays: None Absent: Conneman The motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Howe — The next agenda it is: Consideration of a modification of the Wiedmaier Court 5 -Lot subdivision annroval and a recommendation to the Town or Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals concerning approval of a fill permit. Chairperson Howe — And there will be a SEQR determination related to this, but we'll start with a presentation. Frank Santelli, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors I am Frank Santelli with TG Miller and with me is Michelle Palmer, landscape architect and George Wiedmaier, owner of the property. To get everybody located, this is on the corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road 'in the Town very close to the corporation line with the Town of Dryden, I believe, is beyond. To give you some history, our office did the original engineering work for the subdivision in 2003. The surveyor I believe, it was an outside surveyor, I think it was PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 14 Regan did the surveying for the subdivision at that time. ..it ... there's a private drive that services the 5 lots. There's 4 _lots, relatively small lots that range from about 8 /1 0th of an acre to almost 2 acres and then a 3rd lot which encompasses the remaining lands that go all the way down to the bottom of the hill on Burns Road. This is a recent survey of the property. The private drive has been installed. I think the approval was originally in December of '03. The owner got building permits for 2 of the lots and he installed most of the infrastructure to serve the lots. The private drive, there was a watermain extension and a sewer forest line. The original design, from an engineering and the stormwater standpoint was generally. to reduce as much disturbance as possible. I can...the drive effectively runs along a ridge going down the hill and the general idea was to reduce disturbance on the property, and, as far as stormwater, there were no formal sort of structural type practices proposed. It was all to shoot the run -off on to the pervious surfaces as the main treatment system for the stormwater. The full acreage on the property is I think 16 '/2 acres. The amount of impervious surfaces, even estimating for the two, well actually, these two separate lots that have not been developed and a third lot with a driveway and house is approximately 1 acre out of the 16'/2 acres. This lower area, this is a, this is a zoning boundary here, this lower portion is zoned conservation which helped to maintain a relatively non -dense type of development where 5 lots on 16 '/2 acres is relatively, is relatively few. We got involved with the project after, well, I guess it was last Fall when I got a call from George and I guess I had found out at that point that there was some significant disturbance on this 5th lot and if you look at the survey map, it shows an outline of what was recently disturbed down here. And when we got involved there was, there were no controls on, there were no stormwater controls or anything in place at that time. George got a hold of our office, again. The first thing we did was try to implement what I would call I guess emergency or immediate stabilization efforts which included cutting back some of the banks because they were very steep. A lot of the material had just been pushed down the bank without being graded off. So we directed George's contractor to kind of pull those banks bank and try to establish approximately a 1 -on -3 slope which he was generally able to do. There's a couple of areas that are still probably somewhat more than 1 -on -3, they're probably closer to 1 -on -2 '/2 . The other immediate action that we suggested and directed the contractor to do was to seed everything, mulch everything and also establish perimeter silt fences around the bottom. The silt fencing was difficult to install at the bottoms of the banks because of the vegetation down there. Generally you'd like to put silt fence below the disturbance. It was quite difficult without actually going in and disturbing more vegetation. So we had two things that we did on the real steep areas; we asked him to put in the erosion - control blanket on top of the mulch and seed and they also moved some of the silt fencing further up the hill. Now the, one of the permits that we are asking for tonight is a .fill permit which is required, I think, if you move more than 500 yards and then I believe there is another threshold at the 2,500 yard volume. We did not have actual detailed topography of this area before the disturbance. We believe, our best estimate is that we will probably, it's PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 15 very likely that close to 2,500 yards was moved down there. The exact number, we're. not totally sure, but it's probably close to that number if I had to put a guess on it. And I think the other ... so there's the fill permit that you're, that we're looking at and then the other thing is there's a change to the original subdivision which ... the original design was to try and disturb as little as possible and I think the original number was on the order of 2 '/2 acres. Based on the survey, we've, we believe it's closer, currently at about 5.6 acres of land has been disturbed, so about twice or better than twice what was originally was proposed. So I guess that's the second... Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you to show on that map which areas have been disturbed that were not supposed. to have been. Mr. Santelli --This is a larger detail map so this might be easier to see. -Here's the...this is Slaterville Road, Burns Road, and this does not show the whole property, which continues further down. This dark line here, well, this is part of the proposed, beyond ... let me see ... this line here would be the disturbance since 2003. And we are proposing a slight additional disturbance on Lot 1 for a house lot. Board Member Hoffmann — But could you show, by, drawing other lines, the size of the area that was disturbed that was not supposed to be disturbed. Not just on Lot 5, but in other areas. Mr. Santelli — I think Staff asked us to add that line ... and I think I did...l don't know if anybody has any nice markers that I could borrow ... (Chris Balestra gets him one)...the original line is ... (he outlines the area)... Chairperson Howe — I think the point is a large area was disturbed. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and it was not just the area on Lot 5 as I understand it, but all along the driveway down to Lot 5 and also in the rear yards of Lots 2, 4, and 3. Is that correct? Mr. Santelli — Yes. Lots 2, 3 and 4 saw somewhat more disturbance than what was on the original plat, that's correct. Chairperson Howe — Why don't you finish your presentation and then I know we have questions. Mr. Santelli — So the. owner understands that a mistake was made. I don't know the full . history, if there are questions concerning how everything occurred ... but the first thing that we did was to try and stabilize this area that .was disturbed last summer, last fall guess ... and the second thing was to try and come up with a remediation plan. We try to correct an obvious mistake. George hired Michelle Palmer to sort of come up with a restoration plan for the vegetation on a lot of these areas and that's what's shaded here on the drawings, is the area to be re- vegetated and Michelle can speak to what's... Chairperson Howe — I think it makes sense to just go through the full presentation and yeah, we'll get an overview of the re- vegetation. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 16 Mr. Santelli — There's a couple of other things on the plan, there's 1, 21 39 4 pavilions that also became an issue when we reviewed the site with Staff. Effectively, it's sort of difficult to tell where's the front lot and the rear lot and we went back and forth with Staff on determining exactly what variances would be required if we tried to go for a variance. I think, if the house was here, this lot, that pavilion technically would be in the rear yard and would be in compliance if there were a house on the lot. These other, the other ones, we determined were .either in side lots or front lots and would require a variance irrespective of whether there was a house of not. Since we did these drawings, we looked through the materials that would be required for a variance and the criteria that would be required and George has decided that the pavilions will be taken down. So we won't be asking for any variances from the ZBA. There was also a proposed lot change here to do that and that no longer will be proposed.. The third issue is sort of the ... let me go through some of the drawings here to give an explanation. This is Lot 5 and the owner is hoping to build his house down here. The whole idea I think, my understanding is, he wanted to get the subdivision, either build or sell the four upper lots so that he could eventually build his own house down below. So what is shown on this Lot 5 plan is an approximate footprint of a proposed house and what the grading would look like for that lot. The next sheet shows another larger scale drawing of the upper lots. These are the two existing houses and these are the two vacant lots at this point in time. The next drawing is the erosion and sediment control plans. For constructing the house we are showing silt fencing, stabilized entrances to keep mud from tracking out of the site, same thing for the upper two lots ... we've got, we're proposing diversion swales at the upper side of the lots, stabilized entrances to be used during construction and silt fencing at the lower sides. We're... relative to the stormwater issue, we did, we had discussions with the DEC. The original subdivision, because the proposal was to disturb less than five acres, it did not require a formal stormwater pollution protection plan. Since there is a five acre threshold for residential properties, because the disturbance has exceeded the five acres, the owner is required to put in place a formal stormwater pollution prevention plan and that is in the materials and we also have a draft notice of intent that includes the updated information for the property. Currently we're proposing rain - gardens as sort of an enhancement to the stormwater management. We did discuss it with Staff, I had thought that the DEC was in agreement when we had met. A follow -up email as of about a week ago, it sounds like the DEC may be having second thoughts on whether the stormwater pollution... sort of the permanent stormwater facilities are adequate... Board Member Riha — Excuse me, you said that was an enhancement to the -- stormwater- plan ?- _W_hat was- the_stormwater..... Mr. Santelli — Well, in general, and some of this has come out more recently, in 2003 when we developed the design, this road somewhat goes along a ridge, so the idea was, is, not to put swales on the road, not to concentrate the run -off, don't put curbs in, PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 17 don't put gutters, let the runoff sheet off the roadway and onto the pervious areas of lawn and woods so that it can infiltrate back in and similar all the way down. Same thing, with the houses, none of the...there are gutters .on the houses but the gutters aren't piped. There's no piping out to the existing drainage channels which run sort of at the north and along the south... Recently, the DEC as of I think in the last year or two, and this has been developed over the last few years, they're coming up with what they call a "better site design" type of approach to stormwater management, which has certain criteria of reducing disturbance, trying to maintain as much buffer area along stream banks, running, for your impervious areas, running it on to the pervious surfaces to help rain filtration and treatment of the stormwater. The general idea is to design the site so that your impacts are low and you don't, you're not, you don't have to sort of mitigate the problem downstream. If we were to put sort of a traditional stormwater facility we would,.you know, you would think of putting it on, actually building it on the stream or in the channel here. I think the idea of it was, the idea of a better site design is to, I can go through the points, it's essentially; minimize your disturbance, sheet flow, don't concentrate the flows, and that was, and, and sort of reduce the footprint. There's certain criteria... there's actually credits .available through the DEC for that type of design and we effectively comply with all the criteria of the credits. One that we probably, that we didn't, is this section of .stream where the credit would typically require a 50 -foot buffer along any natural stream and that obviously did not happen, at least for this section of the stream. The remaining stream, down to Burns Road, at the bottom', we effectively do comply with that buffer area. So, I responded to the DEC's latest email and I haven't heard back from her. Board Member Riha — This stream is a trib, a tributary into Six Mile Creek, Mr. Santelli —This is, yeah, I think... Board Member Riha — Which is the water supply system. Mr. Santelli — I'm not sure how that maps on a USGS map, if that's considered intermittent or not... (Audience member says it's intermittent) Chairperson Howe — Let's try to get through it and then ask the specific questions. Obviously one of the criteria in the resolution is that they have the approval from DEC for the stormwater pollution prevention plan, so they're going to have to... Mr. Santelli — Yeah, I explained in my email to Ellen Hahn at the DEC that we were going to go ahead and present to the Board and I assumed that any approval would be conditioned on us resolving the stormwater issue with them. Chairperson Howe — Would you like to hear a little bit about the plan to re- vegetate and ... it's covered pretty well, but if you could just cover that briefly that would be helpful. Michelle Palmer, Licensed Landscape Architect PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 18 As Frank mentioned, I was brought on sort of late in the game; in the Fall, when George understood that re- vegetation was going to be required for the areas that were cleared that shouldn't have been cleared. So I went out and sort of looked at what was existing on the site in the areas around that weren't, wasn't cleared and then tried to come up with a plan to re- vegetate. I've worked with the folks up at RPM, and they supply really high - quality plant materials, native plants and it was an interesting learning experience, for myself even. They recommend 50 -60 trees per acre for reforestation. Now, there's no sort of set standard anywhere that's the absolute. Often standards will say 100 -200 trees per acre with the expectance that in standard trees, you get a lot of loss. Up to 30% mortality with standard trees where the RPM folks find that they are only getting about 5% loss. So, we went with a number that was kind of higher than RPM recommended but lower. maybe than some standards might say. We went with 100 trees per acre, so, these areas with this sort of hatch pattern show where that re- vegetation of trees would take place. And then some of the areas around the residences, the trees wouldn't be planted quite so close, those would be places where a native seed mix would get over - seeded in the lawn area. That includes some herbaceous plants and grasses and some woodiest so it will eventually take on a sort of brushy kind of character and over time, probably, trees are going to be seeded in there too. Existing on the site, there are a variety of vegetation, some of which is native and pretty good quality. A lot of it is non - native and kind of invasives too. So, what we looked at putting back were all native plants and some of them that are native to the region and some of them that are native to the site, but all things that provide, should eventually make a kind of more interesting woodland than perhaps was there before. I don't know if you want more information specifics on the plants? I can certainly talk about that... Chairperson Howe — We might get to that in a minute, but that's I think a good overview for now, so thank you. You know, one thing I feel we should ... let's just get out of the way, because I know this Board ... we take our conservation zones very seriously and I know people just want to say, you know, "what were you thinking!", so let's just get that out of the way and see if we can address that so we don't have to spend 45 minutes trying to figure out why did this happen. So, is there a statement that you want to make about how did this happen. George Wiedmaier, 2419 Shelter Lane, Bowie Maryland I was preparing to get ready for the next house and it went with a contractor, Dan Haines, and ask his advice on clearing and seeding. What is the process to do and I made the mistake of going with his advice and I should have checked with other people and to where it got into a mess. Chairperson .HoweL--,Any_one._._Jhis is the time ... let's get this out of the way ... so, Fred... Board Member Wilcox — I spoke to Mr. Wiedmaier before the meeting began. I was here early, he was here early. He expressed his remorse to me privately; I think everybody should know that, number one.. I told him that I was sure we would have PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 19 some not -so -nice things to say to him, he understood that. I want to mention, he drove up from Maryland this afternoon, he's driving back to Maryland tonight because he's got to be to work in the morning. I appreciate the fact that he's here. I didn't expect him to be here, I'm glad he's here and we'll tar and feather him a little bit and then we'll move on and we'll right this wrong. Chairperson Howe — Let's do the tar and feathering... Board Member Riha — I just want to say I forwarded to Susan Ritter... these pictures do not do justice because I went to live.com which has satellite photos in great detail and it looks like a meteor struck this site and there's an enormous amount of disturbance. This can't even begin to do justice ... I mean, you could easily, from those satellite photos, estimate the amount of- disturbance. I was just a little surprised that it was so recent because usually those photos are a year or two old. But you're saying this only happened in September? That it started? Mr. Weidmaier — Yes, this past summer. I was preparing to get ready to build my house and I had my house on the market, and of course, it didn't sell, nothing's selling now, and now the timetable is pushed further, but, I wasn't able to ... I just got bad advice, bad advice all the way around. Board Member Hoffmann — I have to confess I was very angry when I found out what happened here and the gross deviations from what the approved plan said could happen to what actually happened. And I haven't heard any mention tonight about the fact that we had set aside areas that on the plans from 2003 are described as...there are dashed lines describing the approximate limit of clearing on Lots 1- 4 as well as Lot 5 and I just can't believe that this has happened. And I still feel angry about it. Mr. Weidmaier — Only thing I can say is I'm sorry, I didn't know, and it's my fault and the people that I was listening to I guess were just ... they didn't care and they were just taking my money and ... I don't know what to say. I really don't know what to say. I'm sorry. I'm going to try and fix it. I'm hiring who I have to hire. I tore one pavilion down already, the rest are going, as soon as I can get more funds and get things moving. don't know what else to say. I mean, believe me, I'm not happy with it either and...) don't know what else to do. I'm here for help and I've hired them for help, to get the right advice, so nothing like this ever happens again. I don't want anything like this to happen again. I don't want to build anything on the property but my house. No more pavilions, nothing. I just don't know what else to do. Chairperson Howe — Larry or Hollis, anything? Board Member Thayer — Pretty well said. Chair-per-son- -Howe - -- All —r- ight.-- We'II__move_on_ then. —_I —think _ we all saw the recommendation ... I don't know if anyone is disagreeing with this from the Planning Staff, not to try to recreate the original topography and to move forward on some of the plans as proposed. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 20 Board Member Riha I had a question for Dan. I mean, what they've now put in place ... is this adequate? Especially around this Lot 5 decapitation? Mr. Walker —Well, they've done... Board Member Riha — I mean you feel this is now... controlling it... Mr. Walker — I think this is the best way to deal with it because, you know, if you don't grant, or recommend the recreating plan as it's portrayed, like, getting it back to the original condition is going to cause even more damage and it will never be. quite the same as it was. I think with the density of the trees and the types of vegetative treatments, the wildflower mixes and so, on, it will become a very nice established site. Assuming the deer don't eat all the trees the first three years, but, you know, it will, once they get the ground covered with this good seeding and these trees planted, there's going to be a lot of natural succession fairly rapidly in that area I think, so I think this will be adequate. Board Member Riha — Okay, but do they have some erosion control measures in place now? I mean, did they put in some stuff now? Mr. Walker — Yes, they pulled back some of the soil from the deepest areas, and as Frank was describing, the way they pushed the dirt. around a lot of the trees, there's going to be some more trees that are dying in the other area because they basically covered them with three or four feet of fill. Removing that fill would kill the trees too, so there's not a real good solution to that. The sediment fence they put in and then there's the mulch and erosion control fabric, those are all issues that could keep it from eroding. One big benefit, one saving grace here is that it is a limited drainage area. It's not like they have forty acres of watershed above this. It's at the top of the hill, so it's not generating a huge amount of runoff and once they get the growing season going and get the seeding done, I think we'll be in great shape. Chairperson Howe — Do you want to address our questions now or do you want to do SEQR and then do our questions... how do you want to move forward? Just get our questions out and open the public hearing.... Board Member Riha — Mine are mostly about stormwater, which is not part of SEQR right? That's part of site plan ... I always get confused about that. Board Member Wilcox — I think stormwater management is an environmental issue that's part of SEQR. Chairperson Howe — Why don't we ... what are our key questions? Let's get those out on the table, so, let's start down with Fred and then work our way up ... so Fred... Board Member Wilcox — The key can be done today to stabilize applicants agent and by the atton Engineer... thank you very much. question for me is; have they done the maximum that the situation? That's been _ answered both by the iey ... I'm sorry ... the applicant's agent and by the Town ..so the next question is, what are they going to do in PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 21 the future to further stabilize and bring this back to what it can be? The proposal is 250 trees, I want to make sure none of those trees are invasive...or classified as invasive. .,the ten species that are being proposed. Let the record reflect that there was a nod of the head from Michelle. Ms. Palmer - They are not invasive. Board Member Wilcox - So that's important. Getting DEC to approve the final resolution on how to deal with the stormwater management, and then, you know what, knowing the name of the contractor so if we ever hear of him again, we'll be prepared for something like this in the future. Board Member Erb - I was glad-to -see that the trees were going to be placed in a more natural and more irregular sort of planting rather than lining them up in a grid pattern. I was a little confused by what Mr. Santelli said about the rain- .ponds. Are you saying that the DEC is not going to ask for them? Or that DEC is going to ask for something more serious? Mr. Santelli - Well, I think, and I'm not sure, I only had, I was only able to get a hold of Ellen Hahn for about 15 minutes on the phone. I think her initial reaction, it sounded like, they would rather see us trying to treat the paved areas as opposed to the roofs. Typically a road is a higher generator of pollutants than roof areas are. So that was, think, sort of the impetus towards looking to try and treat those area as opposed to the roofs. It, the problem is it presents problems of trying to collect runoff from those areas. We would either have to put swales along the roadway and bring it down the hill to a treatment system, or we would have to put a collection system around the backside of the houses and, and, to get it to a treatment system further down the hill. So, and think the other thing we would say is a lot of the paved surfaces are gravel. The only actual asphalt is to the turnaround.... Board Member Riha - This was actually... Mr. Santelli - A lot of the ... the house drives and the drive down to Lot 5 are gravel and it's not like it's a through road where you would get a lot of traffic, it's just serving the five lots, so... Board Member Riha - This was my question; so, why can't they just stay gravel and if they stay gravel, why would they be considered impervious surfaces? Mr. Santelli - Well, typically gravel over time compacts... Board Member Riha - And so they actually count it as a ... . - Mr. -- Santelli -- =Yeah, if -you look_ at. .the_Soils__Co.nservation Service,_they -do assign a lower curve number to gravel as opposed to asphalt. Typically we consider gravel as relatively an impervious surface. Board Member Riha - But the plan is for it to stay gravel? PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 22 Mr. Santelli — Yeah, I think so. Board Member Erb — The only other thing I'll say is that although I understand that all of the little pavilions were not approved, if I lived in this little neighborhood, I would have appreciated seeing at least one of them staying up even though I know it counts as impervious surface area, so... Mr. Walker — Hollis, the pavilions are really only in question because they were built not in conformance with the zoning as far as lot lines and what yards they were in. It's not so much, they're pretty small. Board Member Erb — Yeah, I walked the area, my boots, I'm still kicking mud off. Mr. Walker — Yeah, but you can't have them in the front yard, you can't have them within two feet, you can't have them crossing a borderline, those types of things. That was the problem with the pavilion. Chairperson Howe — That might be something they can address down the road... Board Member Erb — Yeah, I guess I'm saying that in the future, it.... Chairperson Howe — Okay. Anything else Hollis? Board Member Erb — Not for me, thank you. Board Member Riha — I'm fine. Board Member Thayer — Most of my questions have been answered, particularly by Dan, but, what were the pavilions for, actually? Mr. Weidmaier — I had built the pavilions, had them built for the people who lived in each place, to give them someplace to have a picnic with their family out of the sun and weather. Once again, I didn't research where to build them so, it's too...it costs too much to move them ... you can't do anything else with them. They look nice, they gotta be torn down, I can't do anything else with them and I can't afford to change the boundary lines, I can't afford to do anything else with them. One's already down... Board Member Thayer — Can they be moved maybe? Mr. Weidmaier — It costs too much money. The 16 400t ones ... and then where would you put them? It's all hill. It's hills everywhere. And I gotta move more dirt, more problems ... so I don't want to touch anything, just cut the things down, loss of $12,000. Board,Member. Thayer — The rain-gardens_ are kind of a strange thing for me. I had never heard of that, and obviously that's not going to work I don't think. Chairperson Howe — Well we've touched upon those a little bit. I mean, you're waiting on more feedback from DEC on those ... I think we've had rain - gardens before. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 23 Ms. Ritter — Hmmm ... not as a ... they're not usually used as a major, you know, one of the man -made major devices for controlling stormwater. They're used as kind of an augmentation sort of thing. They're also pretty to have in your yard. In this case, this size development, and given all of the open space, probably would not require any stormwater facilities because you do allow for the runoff which is sometimes better .because you don't have this maintenance headache down the road. Unfortunately, because over 5 acres were disturbed, it throws you into this category as if this was a bigger development. So the question is, because Frank has made this case to the DEC, you know, they're having this restoration project, they're, you know, hopefully the vegetation will re -grow. Hopefully then stormwater can sheet -flow and do what it would have done normally on this site. But the question is, whether DEC will agree to that. So, right now I think it is whether the rain - garden is adequate or are they going to require them to do something else and I don't think we know that quite yet. If, if they do decide to put in swales ... and I guess I didn't realize maybe even a base of some kind ... if that is ultimately required, then I guess we have to go into operation maintenance issues which we don't usually get into with this kind of size subdivision. So, I'm just not sure if they will buy this kind of argument that these are better site design, that this area.will be re- vegetated or if more man -made things are required. So we might need to beef up this condition a bit, regarding the stormwater prevention plan. Mr. Walker — I just have one comment on the stormwater pollution prevention plan. Because this is a ... you know, there are a lot of slopes on this site, there's not a lot of normal concentration flow right now. It generally runs off of this ... it's like the spine of a ... well, a mad boar I guess, but it just sort of runs off to the side and doesn't accumulate. Actually, if DEC says you have to collect your stormwater and put it into a detention pond, it's going to make it pretty hard to do it and maintain the vegetative cover that's shown on this plan. I wouldn't ... I'm sure that's what's going through Frank's mind ... what do I collect ... you know we could put a diversion around both sides of the houses and bring it down to a point lower down, but you're going to be getting close to the stream and you're going to have to disturb another acre or so of the vegetation to get a pond in there that would meet it. And volume isn't the issue, I don't think, and I think vegetative treatment will really handle the quality issues, from my standpoint, and I haven't gotten in the middle of this discussion with DEC, but I may end up being there at some point. Board Member Wilcox — What you're saying is that the standard approach just may not apply in this situation. Mr. Walker — Yeah, the DEC is shorthanded, they have a lot of these things going on and if it's not cut and dried in the book, they have to review it individually and it takes a lot of effort to do that. Chairperson Howe — You're all set? Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I have a number of comments: The trees that you're proposing to plant to re- vegetate these areas are described as being 3 -4 feet high and to me, even though you say something to the contrary in the papers, to me that's like planting deer food ... (laughter)...I mean, I see what happens in my yard, I have deer PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 24 coming through every day, first one way and then the other, and they get up on their hind legs to eat from trees that are quite tall. So, I would like to see taller trees planted, and, if you do not plant taller trees, I would like to require that there's regular checking up to see if the trees do in fact survive and the ones that are not surviving need to be re- planted. Because if you re- vegetate with trees that are going to be eaten up, it's not a real re- vegetation. Chairperson Howe — Did you want to .respond to that now? Ms. Palmer — Please. Certainly deer are a huge problem in our area and there's no guarantee that they won't eat any particular species if they're hungry enough but the species selected are definitely ones that are not their favorites and the folks at RPM have had very, very good luck with deer - browse at this size tree. So again, there's absolutely no guarantees but this has been considered and I don't take it lightly as an issue. Board Member Hoffmann — Well I'm telling you that I feel very seriously and strongly about this, so, how I react to the proposal in the end will depend a lot on that: I would also like to see ... in the plans that we were given today, or in the packet that are dated 9/17/2007, prepared by TG Miller, Mr. Santelli, the lots 1,2,3, and 4 look like they have regular setback lines. Our original, the original plans that were approved by us from 10/30/2003, show a different line. I already alluded to it earlier. There is a dashed line that says "approximate limit of clearing" and our intent, and I we made it quite clear, and as I remember, everybody understood it, that there was not supposed to be ... this is a little out of the ordinary, there was not supposed to be any clearing except where the house footprint was supposed to be and a fairly small area around the house. Anything else outside that line, that dashed line, was not supposed to be touched. But it has been. And I would like to see those lines reestablished and those areas where there has been clearing also reseeded and replanted with trees the same way that you're proposing on the large area that's Lot 5 that has been disturbed. Because that was the original approval and there was a reason for that. Mr. Santelli — Well, my response, I guess, would be the area of, that we're proposing to mitigate would ... the net area of disturbance after the restoration, I believe, is very close, it's very close to the 2.3...1 think it was 2.3 or 2.4 acres ... so the line has changed, but the ultimate acreage is effectively the same. Board Member Hoffmann — Well how ... can you explain to me how that has come about? Mr. Santelli — Well the surface ... we want...you know, we weren't involved during the construction, so... Board Member Hoffmann — I don't care who explains it, whoever knows... Chairperson Howe — Well, Eva, I think we've sort of covered that, we've moved on. We're just talking about the future. We've heard the excuses that something happened PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 25 that shouldn't have happened so I don't think there is any reason to try and go back and say,. "Well, why did it happen. ", so, could you address your concerns to... Board Member Hoffmann —I don't think that's. what I'm asking. I'm asking how does he come up with a figure of total land area instead of trying to explain why they cannot put back this line... Chairperson Howe — But isn't there some re- vegetation around those other lots? If I'm reading this map correctly... it's not just re- vegetation... Board Member Hoffmann — But it doesn't. cover the same area that had been required from the beginning, as far as I can tell. Chairperson Howe — You're getting good at drawing,.. Mr. Santelli — The red line is the original proposal. This is the disturbance beyond what ... and this is the area that's restored, so, the area within the green line, which would be the remaining area after the restoration, is effectively the same as the red area. I mean, it's ... you can see the effective area is ... there's areas here that were to be disturbed ... so there are areas that were originally areas to be disturbed that are going to be restored and vice - versa. The net area is effectively the same I believe it's 2.3 acres. Board Member Hoffmann — But I'm talking also about the area ... I'm looking now at plan C01... Board Member Wilcox — Site plan... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, and there is this area with crosses on it, hatching, representing area to be restored as woods, and that area goes much closer to the creek that we talked about earlier at the bottom of the plan... right... and that area there looks like a restoration that is more according to what had originally been required, but the area to the west of Lots 1 and 3 don't show that there's ... it shows some restoration, but it doesn't show west of that if that can still be disturbed or if that's to be protected and not disturbed. Mr. Santelli — Yeah ... I'm not sure if I followed you but, the hatching is the area that we're proposing to restore. Board Member Riha — And the idea would be beyond the hatching is areas that have never been disturbed ... so you don't need to restore them. Ms. Palmer — And will not be disturbed... Chairperson Howe — We have another item to get through tonight... Eva, go ahead ... yes, there will be a public hearing... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg, 26 Board Member Hoffmann — Let's see ... (Eva goes to the displayed plan and points) ... this area here will be restored. But what will happen to the area between this red line and here? Mr. Walker — It's all undisturbed Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but it doesn't say that it will remain undisturbed, on these new plans, like it did on the original plans ... at least I haven't found it... Mr. Walker — Well, if you want to make a recommendation then that there be no disturbance beyond the limit of restoration, then that's what you need to do. That's very simple to say that the area, no areas outside of the two .... where the buildings are, where you're showing... you' re showing the - cross- hatched restoration area... nothing on the outside of that, beyond the road, is to be disturbed. Board Member Hoffmann — That's exactly what I want. I want it restored like the original site plan... Mr. Walker -- Just make it a condition. Just make it a condition, we'll put it 'on the site plan. Very simple. Chairperson Howe — Okay, done, let's move on. Board Member Hoffmann — Let's see. I think that were the two main things that I had. Chairperson Howe — Okay. To readdress SEAR, and then I'll open the public ... would someone like to move... Board Member Thayer — I'll move SEQR. Board Member Erb — I'll second it. Board Member Hoffmann — This is, I guess this is a project that already has had a huge environmental impact and I want to be sure we don't make the same, and pass the SEQR too early, before we've heard comments from the people who are here and want to speak now. Chairperson Howe — What's your pleasure? Board Member Wilcox — It's up to the Chair. ...(laughter).:. Board Member Riha — Well we'll open ... we'll have public discussion on the SEQR right? Chairperson Howe — No, the SEQR... usually the public hearing is more on the modifications on the site... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg, 27 Board . Member Hoffmann —And I know Fred did it ' before and I've done it sometimes when I've had to fill in, it's not a formal public hearing, but it's a chance to hear what the public has to say. Chairperson Howe — Well there is a formal public hearing scheduled... Board Member Hoffmann — Well that's later, not for SEQR, but we have often given people a chance to speak formally before we vote on SEQR. Chairperson Howe — I'd like us just to move forward with SEQR. Ms. Brock — Can I make a comment? Chairperson Howe — yes. Ms. Brock — It seems to me there's an awful lot that's still unknown right now about the stormwater facilities. We don't know what the facilities will be and we don't know where they are going to be located, we don't know what impact that will have on the rest of the plans that have been submitted. For example, Dan said that if a stormwater detention pond is required, that might change the vegetative cover which means all these lines that have been drawn may end up being shifted. We don't know whether operation maintenance plans will be required. We don't know if O &M agreements with the Town will be required. It seems like it's really premature for you to be trying to approve something when we don't really know what the final subdivision is going to end up looking like in terms of the stormwater facilities. Among other things, I was thinking that we should have a condition requiring deed restrictions regarding the rain - gardens so that no structures are built in them, but we don't even know if we are going to end up with rain - gardens. Ms. Ritter — We definitely will have rain - gardens. The only thing we could do is approve what's here and if something changes, then come back in. but approve what, approve this plan that's been submitted and if it becomes more extensive... Ms. Brock — So if there are any changes to the stormwater management plans, that you will get to come back? Ms. Ritter — Well I guess if the thinking is we're going to have to stop right now and wait and get more information, I think my preference would be, approve what's here now and then if there are significant changes to the stormwater, then come back in. Is that what you're suggesting? Just to stop and come back in? Ms. Brock — Right, that's what I was - thinking because there is so much that is unknown right now. Ms. Ritter — Well I think the only thing that is unknown is the stormwater and I think that came up fairly recently, so we were going under the impression that the rain - gardens were okay, were adequate. It certainly, I mean, the big thing was this was a big erosion and sedimentation control problem and that has been stabilized. This issue of having to PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 28 have these facilities on the site, you know, that is questionable whether that's really going to happen and whether Frank has made a case that the better site design practices that DEC is trying to encourage people to do, whether they will take that to heart and not require anything more. That might just be one suggestion. Chairperson Howe — Yes Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — Susan, and other Staff too, what do you think about having rain - gardens? Do you think it's appropriate in this case? Ms. Ritter — You know, the rain - gardens are sort of a supplemental sort of, it's a measure that allows you to have ... I guess ... you know ... water that's coming from roofs or whatever to go into a rain - garden. They're not a big facility, it's like a decorative feature in your yard, and... Chairperson Howe — Yeah, I don't think those are really, I don't think that's really an issue... Board Member Riha — No the issues are near the creek there and whether there was enough buffering between that and the road and the houses right around there. Mr. Santelli — Right, well there was some question of whether we would... there's some question of whether we would obtain the credits as they were currently written because we didn't provide that buffer. The actual question that was sort of posed to we was; if we were starting new, how would we designing it, and I think my answer was, I think we would do it very similar to the way we did it. Obviously we would have maintained that buffer, but that would have been the only change and really, the rain - gardens probably wouldn't be...necessarily...it was more of an enhancement, it was something to show that we're trying to do to correct an obvious wrong and it's also an enhancement to the lots there I think too. Chairperson Howe — Jonathan wants to say something and then let's hold off on the SEQR, open the public hearing, and then come back and decide how we're going to move forward. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think from our point of view in the Planning Department, the stabilization and reclamation and re- vegetation of the site is the most important thing and the quicker we can get that started, the better chances of preventing further damage to the surrounding area. And so anything we can do to keep the process moving and to get the applicant in compliance with something, whatever it's in compliance is, as opposed to the illegal situation that he's in now, would be beneficial. Chairperson Howe — Why don't you have a seat and we'll open up for public comment. So at 8:32 we'll open the public hearing for the PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 29 Consideration of a modification of the Wiedmalier Court 5 -Lot Subdivision approval and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals concerning approval of a fill permit. Chairperson Howe — Is there anyone here who would like to address the project. Raise your hands and 1 will just call on you. Go ahead, and I think you've heard us say we need.your name and address.... Grace Saatman, 1585 Slaterville Road And for most every day of 2005 and 2006 1 have been treated to the sound of chainsaws, even on Sunday morning. Bulldozers, trucks, coming and going and coming and going and scraping and pushing. Anybody who for two years did not come and check on such a marvelous project and know where his money was going, I would say is not a good business man. But other than that, 1 just came in from out of town myself last night, so I briefly looked at the proposal. There are some things missing. I wonder if the owner did a forest management plan; "the removal of timber from over 1 acre." If you had that to study, that would affect Zone Code 270 -11e. The maps that are in your packet do not show the intermittent tributary on the north side of this acreage to which he does refer, or somebody refers to in the proposal. They are not on the maps. There are confusing statements in the proposal, that the area "would be restored to woods". 1 think that's a dream in the future to say that if they're proposing to put trees that are 3 or 4 feet high. That is the perfect nibble size for deer and not only that, deer trample, i mean, you can barely keep a 7 foot tree standing up with the cross traffic, because of the watershed area. I know, I have some steel posts on mine trying to keep them upright. So the deer population, because of the watershed, is really a problem out there. I'd like to see trees that are at least 6 -feet tall, they should be guaranteed a certain coverage, you know, in the future, because now I am looking at lights in houses where I thought, when I came in 2003, it would still be a rather preserved area as we had known it. Thank you. Chairperson Howe — Thank you. We'll hear all of the comments and then see if there are some responses. Diane Florini, 1603 Slaterville Road I also have a comment from my neighbor, Linda Johnston. I don't know her address but she lives on the east side of the development. I ran into her while we were voting today. She said that some of the clearing happened on the land of the house where she is living, actually into their property. So I'm wondering whether the replanting in that area will be, will satisfy the owners of that particular property as opposed to just being part of the general 250 trees. In addition, I agree with Grace and with Eva Hoffmann on the problem of keeping trees. It's not only the browsing, it's the rubbing of the deer antlers, in the Fall, which girdle PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 30 trees. I have been planting trees for 10 years on the property across the street to the west of this area and it's a significant problem, even for trees which are .12 feet tall. They rub it off and pretty soon you've got a dead tree. Thank you. James W. Hamilton, 1603 Slaterville Road I am Diane's husband. I'm also a volunteer for the Six Mile Creek Water Quality Monitor Volunteers. Since 2004 1 have been sampling Six Mile Creek to see if the problem at Southern Cayuga Lake may be due to silt from Six Mile Creek, so, I first noticed that the Wiedmair disturbance was causing problems in Six Mile Creek in 2003, when he very first began to bulldoze. These "estimated recent disturbance lines" don't even account for the disturbance that began on this property when he first started clearing. And I noticed that the culver over the old Burn's Way had got clogged up with sand from his land and the water was flooding over the old Burns Road because that culvert was no longer draining. When you look at the intermittent creek here, you don't see where it really drains. This place was surveyed by somebody, maybe Regan, who didn't identify the actual tributaries. There's another 8th mile of tributary to the north of this property that's not indicated on any of your maps. And 8th -of- a -mile of tributary to Six Mile Creek that empties directly into the City water reservoir, looks like this, and your, in most of these maps, your culvert that this secret brook goes through isn't even on the map, but one of them, the ... here we go ... it's C04 ... is really the secret, invisible creek, the 8th -mile of unmentioned creek that's draining right into the City reservoir, isn't even on the map. If a rain - garden were to mitigate runoff you would expect to see one on that side of the new conservation zone housing on Lot 5 but even engineers don't recognize that there is an intermittent tributary to Six Mile Creek on the north side. have pictures of that. I was just down there. I have a movie if you'd like to see a movie of the water running there, I have it on a flash drive in my pocket. I would suggest that at least somebody makes a site visit and notices that tonight there's a good steady stream of that intermittent creek. At least half of the time that creek is running. Because it doesn't have a culvert under Slaterville Road it's not as big as the one on his southside. It's about half as large any they're figuring, you know, let's not think about drainage on that side, (inaudible) problems. Because that side of the Lot 5 is so steep, all of the disturbances from 2003, not just the really recent ones when he was deciding to prepare the lot for the fifth house, but from the very beginning all that disturbance is filling up the culvert that the new Burns Road had to build to give this brook someplace to go. I moved to my house in 1980 and I know this area apparently better than the surveyors and the engineers and over the years (inaudible) I would go for walks in that direction before Burns Road was moved from one side of my house to the other, I would just follow deer trails in there and not come across any posted signs or people who would be disturbed by me taking a walk in the woods and I would go up over a sharp ridge, down into this secret 8th mile creek and up to a ridge that now has been whacked down and turned into a mud flat, and then down into the next valley, that is on these maps at least, and there was a woods there, that had been there more than 40 years ago, it's a full succession for us, and I would like it to be restored and I believe that this restoration progress, this restoration project is not sufficient. I'm really upset about it. I've tried to plant trees, not only in my yard, but also for the Ithaca City project to beautiate Six Mile Creek silt pond, but, that project was in November of 2003 and when I was down there I noticed that the culvert that isn't on this map... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 31 Chairperson Howe — Can you ... I do need to move you along: Can you try to finish up in another minute. Mr. Hamilton — I believe that he has broken more laws than he recognizes. I have, for example, Grace mentioned that in the Zoning Chapter 270, 11 e states that "logging of more than one acre of contiguous land shall require the submission of a forest management plan to, and approval by, the Planning Board." and I don't think you got that. I don't think this is forest management, I think it's rampant destruction and I. don't think it is being remediated or addressed here. The purpose of a conservation zone is to prevent unnecessary destruction of woodland areas. Well, this was unnecessarily destroyed. He did not, as required in Section 270 22f2, retain the existing vegetation. His efforts to remediate by turning that woods into a meadow.doesn't seem to me any kind of a remedy. When you look at this project that you are supposed to be .perhaps approving, they don't say they are going to restore woods, they say the post development site will be a meadow with some brush in it. Maybe a few of those 250 yearling seed trees will survive, but, I'd like. you to require, before you even consider accepting this application, some kind of performance bond that would... Chairperson Howe — I really hate to cut you off, but we really do need to move on to hear other people. Mr. Hamilton — Okay. Chairperson Howe — I think we've gotten your key point. Mr. Hamilton — I don't think so, but if you have to shut me up, I'll go. Chairperson Howe — I didn't mean to shu...but we do have, we have to move on. Yes. Sue Gillis, 112 Burns Road I have been there for 30 -40 years. Quickly, I will just say I am extremely saddened about what has happened on the knoll across the way. It did not happen in weeks, or months, it's been going on since the original permit. Bulldozers, chainsaws. It's just leveled, and if you have the opportunity to take a look at that site, you should see it. Whatever you decide as a Board needs to be monitored. Whether it's a bond, whether it's a consistent monitoring of the replacement of the trees or language that supervises this process because it's not easily restored, no matter what you do. The soil is clay, the drainage is awful. It does go into the stream and I just think the whole thing is a real travesty of what we know is try to be good stewards and there's a real estate sign there that advertises acreage and I'm thinking, what is this? It's just...So, don't treat it lightly, it's.. we have to prevent it from happening again. We all take that conservation district very seriously and this is a real blow to it. Chairperson -Howe -- .Is- there- an.yone_else who would_like._to.._...__ Mr. Hamilton — NCan I give:you some pictures? I brought these for-you guys, I don't have to say anything.-else....:: PB 2 -5 -08 Pg, 32 Chairperson Howe — Yes, you can pass the pictures around. We'll close the public hearing at 8:45p.m. Chairperson Howe — I am cognizant of something Jonathan said, that, you know, we want to ... things are just going to stay there until something gets moving forward, so, but we also know it's a complex issue, so ... Susan, do you have any ... do you want to reiterate anything? Do you have some guidance for us that we can consider as we debate how to move forward or not move forward? Ms. Brock — Well I've already made the comments about the uncertainty about the stormwater facilities. The comments made during the public hearing included some comments that the areas disturbed... areas began being disturbed 2003 forward ... the disturbance is not simply recent disturbance. I noticed on the plans submitted by the applicant, the areas that are disturbed are shown as "areas of recent disturbance" so now I have a question as to whether there are other areas that have been disturbed that are not shown, that aren't shown on the plans, and if that's the case, are those areas outside the limits of disturbance that were allowed by this Board and do you want to address those other areas of disturbance too through revegetation, reforestation and that type of thing? So I think that would be a question to ask the Engineer about. Chairperson Howe — Okay, and I will call them back up in a minute. Anything else that Staff want to say before we sort of move forward on this? Ms. Ritter —There ) s an error correction on the resolution but we can get to that... Chairperson Howe — Jonathan? Mr. Kanter — No, not at this point. Chairperson Howe — Why don't you come back up. We have some questions that have come up that perhaps we'd like to have addressed. One of them being the issue of the timber and whether there was over one acre of timber. We heard that perhaps there was some clearing on the neighbors property. We've heard about a disturbance happening since perhaps 2003. Of course we've addressed some of these issues already in terms of the replanting and the size of the trees and whatnot, but anything, do you want to...anything about the timber ... let's start there, in the amount of timber that may have been cut down. Mr. Santelli — I'm not a forester, I really don't know how many trees were removed or... Chairperson Howe — So you would just be guessing. Anything you want to say about some of the tributaries that aren't showing up on maps. Mr._ Santelli_ —_I_ can. see._wher_e.that ... if we_ _look_at_the_._.. probably ... the only place that it probably does show up would be on the erosion and sediment control plan and no, it's not mapped as an intermittent stream. I don't believe it's ... I don't believe on the USGS quadrangle maps it would show up as a stream or an intermittent stream. It can be..Jt, the culvert on Burns Road does show up. It ... I think this is effectively the intermittent PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 33 stream that was in question... there's no culvert on Burns Road to it. It is a low area. Again, sort of as Dan described, it's sort of a back of a, a spine of an animal and essentially north of the drive drains, does drain to that, to that and sort of south of the drive drains to the more established stream at the south. Chairperson Howe — Let me just turn to these folks here. Any thoughts on how you want to move forward? Board Member Riha — It seems like we want to make sure the conservation efforts, they move ahead with those, but it isn't clear how much damage has been done and we don't want to let ... and what the final stormwater plan is going to be, and we don't want to limit ourselves in terms of making sure that all the issues of damage and kind of violation of the conservation zone are not-somehow- addressed, right? Chairperson Howe — If there were major changes to the stormwater pollution prevention plan, would it be brought back to this Board? Ms. Ritter — It could be if you would like it to. Chairperson Howe — So that could be one of the conditions... Does that help? If we... Board Member Riha — I was also interested in somebody's statement about, and because there's so much concern about, well, they buy the trees, they plant them, a year later they're all dead and that's it, as opposed to having some sort of bond or something to make sure there's going to be the opportunity to go in again. I mean, something to address that... Chairperson Howe — Some sort of checking and maintenance plan in place... Board Member Riha — Right, because it seems like there is a high probability that there are going to be very little left in a year, even with all the best intentions, and it seems like, given the neighbors, I mean, they have a concern that this area was supposed to be staying in woods but now it's completely.... sounds like it's been largely destroyed, there's some plan to put some more trees back there, but, it's not clear... they're making their best effort, but it's not clear how successful that will be. Ms. Palmer — May I speak? Chairperson Howe — Sure, yes. Ms. Palmer — Again, deer are not predictable and there are certainly issues but I can tell you the RPM people have not just faced it on this site, it's a problem that is ongoing in all of the northeast and they find that they have a very high survival rate. They quoted - me -a- rate- of- 95- %.,.. -. _ Audience — Those are the people selling them.... Chairperson Howe — Please... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 34 Audience — Is this a public hearing anymore? Chairperson Howe — No, the public hearing has been closed. Audience — Those are the people that are selling the trees and... Chairperson Howe — The public hearing has been closed... Ms. Palmer — And he's right. These are the people that are selling the trees, but if they lie to me, I am never going to go back to them again nor are their other clients. It's in their best interest to be honest. Board Member Riha — They're a very successful group in selling trees. They sell them throughout the northeast, so I do think those are one of the best sources. Ms. Palmer — And we also looked. at the specific issues of this site. Yes, it's very heavy clay soil, there's a lot of problems on this site. So we didn't just throw out and pick a few a trees. I spent several weeks back and forth, talking to folks at Cornell, talking to folks there, so, I'm sure that not every single tree will survive, that's not generally possible, but I also sincerely believe that in a year's time we will have many still alive. Whether or not you want some guarantees for it, that's your prerogative and I don't see that that's unreasonable. Chairperson Howe — The question is, do we have too many ... do we have a reasonable amount of changes to make if we try to move forward ?, or do we have too many changes to try and move forward? Ms. Brock — Well, it's not the number of changes, it's also the complexity and types of changes too. Typically when you grant final approvals, all that's to be left are fairly ministerial tasks, not major components of the project. I guess, I have a question actually, for Jonathan because he had said it was important that we at least move forward to try to stabilize the situation or have whatever remediation go forward now, but, since this is February and the site has already had emergency stabilization measures put in place, what would be happening during the next month anyway, after the Zoning Board of Appeals considers the fill permit ... what would actually be happening on the ground anyway that we would be losing, if we were to wait until we got answers to some of these questions? Mr. Kanter — Well I think if we didn't do anything tonight it wouldn't be going to the Zoning Board at the next meeting because there wouldn't be a recommendation. So right there you're talking about at least a month... Ms. Brock — Right, but I guess my question is; what would actually be happening in - - -- - terms -of- what's- going- on_on- the - ground ?_ L mean ,_they can't _move forward until they hear back from DEC anyway. Mr. Kanter — Well, that's correct but I think the advantage to having some plan approved and in place with the recommendation moving forward to the Zoning Board is that when PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 35 the DEC does make a determination, if it is in line with what we've approved, they can start moving ahead quickly. If it's not, then obviously it would have to come back. So don't see a negative of positively moving ahead with something right now knowing that it might have to come back. I think we could work the resolution very clearly in a way.. .it partly is based on the DEC approval, but I think we can get whatever more specificity we need to do, we should do that. I just think it would make a lot more sense to move ahead with it at this point and then, obviously, if there are significant changes it comes back. Ms. Ritter — If I could add one thing as well. I believe the owner is needing to place an order to RPM for these trees and needs to do that relatively soon and that Is ... he's waiting to make that order based on some approvals here, or based on knowing what's going on with this Board. Chairperson Howe — I'd like to try and move ahead. Are others comfortable with trying to move ahead? Board Member Erb — I would like to try and move ahead. Board Member Thayer —Yes, Board Member Erb — I would like to put conditions, but I would like to try and move ahead. Chairperson Howe — So we still have to address the SEQR before we can, ..sol.. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I point out one thing ... it may just be a technicality but, in fact this fill permit application and the stormwater pollution prevention plan that's in this folder; on page 15 where it says operator certification ... it has not been signed and dated by either the owner or the engineer... either by Mr. Wiedmaier or Mr. Santelli. Mr. Walker — .That's actually the permit application for the SPEIDES permit and generally that's completed after the approvals and then it's submitted to the State. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but have they signed other papers that we need to have signed? Like the SEQR form and those other things.... Ms. Ritter — They have signed the SEQR form and I think you have that. Chairperson Howe — I think it's in the packet. Ms. Brock — And I do want to correct one statement that was made by Mr. Santelli ... This Board is not considering the fill permit tonight. All you are doing is _considering__a _ r_ecom mend ation -to—the- Zoning -Board—of--Appeals- as_to_ whether they should grant special approval for the fill permit. Board Member Wilcox — For the fill that's already been moved. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 36 Ms. Brock — Correct. Mr. Walker — Correct. Chairperson Howe — Would someone like to move the SEQR? Board Member Erb — It was already moved and seconded. Chairperson Howe — I'm sorry ... Larry you got that and Hollis seconded ... are there any changes to the SEQR resolution? Board Member Wilcox — Let's make sure we are clear here. We are considering whether the ... what the potential environmental issues may be with the remediation efforts being proposed tonight. Has nothing to do with what happened in the past... Chairperson Howe — Correct. Board Member Wilcox — It's simply the ... that's right ... the environmental impacts of what is being proposed tonight. Board Member Thayer —That's right. Board Member Wilcox — Okay. Thank you. Correct. Ms. Brock — The action before you is: Modification of the subdivision approval. Board Member. Wilcox — Right. Correct. Right. We're not here to judge the environmental impacts of what happened in the past. Board Member Wilcox — The impacts of the plan in front of us, potential impacts. Board Member Riha — What I'm concerned about is what, whether one; the 250 trees in the area that they're talking about, that rationale seemed okay, but whether there wasn't more land disturbed that we're not aware. Some of the neighbors seem to have implied that there may have been more land that was disturbed. Mr. Walker — I believe that the representation on these maps is correct. Board Member Riha — Having gone out and... Mr. Walker — Yes. Board Member Riha -- ..perused the area. Yes. And then the second issue was; what if these trees are all gone a year from now, hopefully they won't be, but what if they are? Chairperson Howe — Well I think in the other resolution we can... Board Member Erb — That's a modification.... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 37 Board Member Riha – Alright. Board Member Wilcox – We can do that as part of the actual site plan... Chairperson Howe – I have a first and a second for the SEQR....all those in favor say aye... Board Member Hoffmann – I still have enough hesitation based on what Susan Brock said, that I will vote no. Chairperson Howe – One ... any other oppositions? ... so just one opposed, the rest in favor... ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2008 - 012 SEQR Modification of Subdivision Approval (in conjunction with Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Approval of a fill permit) Wiedmaier Court Five -Lot Subdivision Slaterville Road & Burns Road Tax Parcel No. 56 -4 -1.22, 569-4 -1923, 56. -4 -1.249 56. -4 -1.25, and 56.-4 -1.26 Planning Board, February 5, 2008 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of modification of Subdivision Approval for the five -lot subdivision located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56. -4 -1.23, 5614-1.24. 56. -4 -1.252 56. -4 -1.26 Medium Density Residential Zone, and Tax Parcel No. 56-4 -1.22, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zone, as well as a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Approval of a fill permit for the same property. The 2003 subdivision approval involved subdividing a 16.7 + /- acre parcel into four lots, ranging in size from approximately 0.8 acres to 1.8 acres, and one 12.3 +/- acre lot. Recently, in preparation of a housing site on the 12.3 acre lot (Lot 5), the applicant performed extensive earthwork and clearing which does not conform with the subdivision approval, and is in violation of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -217, because the action involved the excavation of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of material without obtaining prior approval. The current application includes a restoration — __plan which_calls_for_ applying_a _ native _ se.ed _ mix_and_planting approximately 250 trees, along with new stormwater management controls and submission of revised drawings. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant; Frank L. Santelli, P.E., T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent, and PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 38 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 modification of Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on February 5, 2008, has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a report entitled "Wiedmaier Court Subdivision, Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Fill Permit Application" prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers & Surveyors, dated December 14, 2007, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed modification of Subdivision Approval; 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. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Thayer, Riha, Wilcox and Erb. Nays: Hoffmann Absent: Conneman The motion was passed 5 in favor, one opposed. Chairperson Howe — So now moving to the other resolution, we do want to add something about a monitoring of the trees that are going to be planted to ensure an adequate number will survive. And Susan... Ritter ... I wasn't sure if you were suggesting under 1 b that something had to change to the augmented 1 b. Ms. Ritter — I was initially thinking of some other language, but if the Planning Board would like to see this come back, if there are significant stormwater changes, then that's the wording we would use. Chairperson Howe — Okay, so we want a condition added that if there's significant, I'm --not-sure-what-word _to_ use,__ changes_ to _the._stormwater_pr_e_v_ention_ plan, then it would come back to this Planning Board for review. Are those the two main issues? The monitoring of the trees and the plan coming back before us if there's major changes? PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 39 Board Member Hoffmann — Yes and where would the monitoring of the trees fit in ... would that be under g? . Chairperson Howe — Well I think we are deleting f, is that correct.... Mr. Kanter — I think we want to leave it ... just to make sure it happens... Ms. Ritter — I did make ... there is an error on page 1, item 2, where it says Full Environmental Assessment Form, it should be a Short Environmental Assessment Form. Susan Riha pointed that out to me ... good eyes... Mr. Walker — You can never have too many Susans ... (laughter),... Chairperson Howe — Susan, do you need at help....Susan Brock ... (laughter).... Board Member Wilcox — While she's looking, I have one question for Frank Santelli, if I may ... One of the neighbors who spoke had comments about their neighbor and the woman mentioned that the disturbance had spilled over onto the neighboring property ...did I get that right... comment? Mr. Santelli — I don't know because I was not, obviously we weren't involved during the whole construction process. Most of the infrastructure I believe went in in 2004. The approvals were in 2003. I'm not sure when the house construction occurred, George, in 2005... Board Member Wilcox — Let me get right to the point. So it's possible that...it's possible, we don't know ... that some disturbance may have occurred on a neighbors land in the past. Let's talk about right now. The maps you've provided, they're based on surveys done on the property. Mr. Santelli — Yes, the first one and what's shown on here is based on mapping we've done last fall, probably would have been September /October. The date on the survey map will tell you what actual day we did the survey. The only location that l can see that is conceivable would probably be along the creek there and I don't know why they would have gone beyond the creek there ... not being there, I don't know that. Besides the stream, there's really no adjoining owner. There's the right -of -way along Burns Road along the full north side and the side along... Board Member Wilcox — So it is possible that the conditions might have worsened from the time the field survey was done to produce these maps to today? Possible? Mr. Santelli — I've been out there since the survey, no, nothing has happened behind the house, behind this house or up above that I know about. Board Member Wilcox — I'm sure the neighbor who feels their land has been impacted will contact the owners if they feel something needs to be done. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg, 40 Board Member Erb — May I ask one question of Ms. Palmer ... Last week, walking this property, my boots were caked with mud. If this plan were implemented and it works, what year am I going to be able to walk that property and not have my boots caked with mud? Ms. Palmer — Oh, that should happen within a year. Because the groundcover, I mean, the woods are not going to come back, the woods are going to be 30- years, we know that, but, the groundcovers there that are taking, near the houses, have been there a year or two and there's lawn there. The seeding, if it takes and it should take, there's no reason it shouldn't and if it doesn't take he'll have to do it again. We'll vegetate that within a growing season. Will it be woods? No. Will it be what it was? No. But will it be preventing further erosion and sealing up the ground? Yes. Board Member Erb — And that includes the sloped areas off to the side of the flat area? Ms. Palmer — That's correct. Mr. Walker — As part of the fill permit, we do monitor the vegetation process, and if there are really unstable areas we require them to use things like the slope stabilization fabric that holds soil that are on steep areas like that. Board Member Erb — Because on the north side, there are still some visible erosion gullies going down, on the north side. Mr. Walker — I would believe that that would be true, yes. Chairperson Howe — Make a comment and then let's see if Susan has changes and... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, it relates to what we were just talking about. Would it help to have topsoil on top of this clay layer before it's being seeded and are you planning on putting topsoil in to help it along, to help it get established better? Ms. Palmer — It's an interesting question that I actually posed to the forester at RPM for establishing the trees. He said no. He said that the native soils around here are very poor everywhere and woods grow, so he said no. Now if I was going to plant a baseball field and I wanted perfect lawn, I'd say yes, but the kind of scrubby vegetation that was there and we would like to come back to a sort of naturalistic, grows in the native soil here. The bigger issue really isn't the soil, it's the compaction, and the plans call for the surface of the soil to be scarified and roughed up in places where it's not already established. But where it's established, we don't want to disturb it because that will just make more sediment runoff. Chairperson Howe — Susan, can you review the changes. Ms. Brock — Paragraph b ... I recommend that we keep the language that's in here requiring approval from the DEC on the revised stormwater prevention plan, just keep all that language in there and add additional language ... "and if significant changes are made to said plan by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 41 Board Member Hoffmann — Excuse me Susan, you lost me...you're talking about paragraph lb? Ms. Brock —Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't see that it says DEC there. Ms. Brock — No, that's what I'm adding ... well, it actually does say DEC in the first...so add, "if significant changes are made to said plan by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, submission of an application for a modification of this subdivision approval shall be made to the Planning Board. Board Member Wilcox — I don't like the word "significant" because it is open to interpretation, but, generally, we've been able to rely upon Staff, whether it's the Planner of the Town Planner or Town Engineer to make that determination, what's significant. Ms. Brock — We can say, if significant changes are made to the plan by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as determined by the Town Engineer... Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, yeah. And then follow it up with the requirement for the submission of modification of subdivision approval ... In c ... I have a question about what it means that the areas are to be undisturbed. Does that mean merely no buildings and that type of thing can be constructed in the areas? Does it mean no logging shall every occur? Board Member Hoffmann — Initially, it was meant no disturbance at all, as I remember it. No removal of trees or plants or anything like that and no construction. Board Member Wilcox — Did it include no mowing? Board Member Hoffmann —Yeah because it was not supposed to be logged. Board Member Wilcox — Right. I want to make sure. But, lawn mowing was not supposed to occur either, if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Kanter — I don't think we were real specific, which was possibly why some of the problems started in the first place and then they went worse, and worse, and worse. I think we want to be as specific as we can this time. Ms. Ritter — So that's why the resolutions states what it would be ... like some notes saying that the no- disturbance area is to remain un -mowed and undisturbed in perpetuity. But... Ms. Brock — So, add to the end.of that, let's see, how about, with notes describing that the no- disturbance area is to remain un- mowed, undisturbed in perpetuity, and that no buildings, paved areas or other structures or storage of construction equipment or PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 42 machinery shall be permitted. And if you don't want logging, then I think we need to add that to the list as well. Chairperson Howe — I think we would... Ms. Brock — Does that mean no removal of hazardous trees can occur? I mean maybe there aren't hazardous trees, but I'm just asking these questions. Chairperson Howe — I don't think we mean it to mean that but I don't know how you say it. Board Member Riha — Removal of hazardous trees is okay. Board Member Erb — If a tree's going to fall on a house, I would be content with taking it away. Board Member Wilcox — If a meteorite falls on the property they can remove that as well, I mean, we can't, you know, come on. I'm not sure why no- disturbance is not clear. You can't log it, you can't mow it, you can't do anything, so... Ms. Brock — Well I didn't know what it meant. Board Member Wilcox — Oh, okay... Ms. Brock — So I think it's much better to have it spelt out. Board Member Wilcox — The problem is, if you start spelling out what you can't do, then if you forget to put one of them there, then is it therefore allowed because it's not... Mr. Kanter — Including but not necessarily limited to. Board Member Wilcox —Yeah, that's it... Board Member Thayer —That's it. Ms. Brock — Well actually, the language I was giving was stating what the "notes" describe, so ... all right.... Board Member Wilcox — I'm just concerned that if this gets into court, when they see a list of things that you can't do, then the presumption may be that well, everything else is permissible and that's not true. Ms. Brock — Okay. So, with notes describing that the no- disturbance area...contains restrictions including, but not limited to, no mowing, no logging, no removal of trees other than those that pose a hazard to the public, no buildings, paved areas or other structures shall be constructed and storage of construction equipment and machinery shall be prohibited. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 43 Board Member Wilcox _ The State Constitution uses the term "forever wild" for the Adirondacks, maybe we can... Mr. Kanter— Well, this isn't really "wild" and... Board Member Wilcox — I know, I know... Ms. Brock — I have another question too ... this says that this plat has to indicate the areas to be left in a natural state and I think there were some comments around that. Do we need to be more specific about where those areas are? Is our intention that they are all the areas where the re- vegetation is occurring and the remainder of the land outside of the portions that are actually being developed? Chairperson Howe — I think it was the areas outside where the re- vegetation was going to occur. It wasn't, it didn't state that those were meant to stay... Board Member Hoffmann — Right ... if you look back to the original plans from 2003, there was this clear dashed - outline of where construction and lawns and driveways could happen and outside of that, there could be no disturbance. And it's called here "approximate limit of clearing." Chairperson Howe — So it might be the outside of the re- vegetated area that's meant to remain... Ms. Brock — Well, even the re- vegetated area should not be disturbed, so it's out... Mr. Walker — There is a dot -dash line that's just along the edge of the disturbed area or the hedged area ... which pretty much follows the line that was, that showed the limit of disturbance on the original maps. So if that line were to be labeled "no disturbance outside this area" of "limit of disturbance area" Chairperson Howe — You're on C01? Ms. Ritter — Yeah. See the darker dash line ... I mean, if Staff could just make sure that when this comes in the plate has all that area identified as "no disturbance". Board Member Riha — That would be good I think. Board Member Erb — And we're not ... it's understood that re- vegetating it falls within "no disturbance "? Mr. Walker — Oh, gee, 1 guess we can't go there and re- vegetate it then could we... _.-Board-Member Erb — No, I just ... I just ... the intent is that once re- vegetated, this will be the... Mr. Walker — Right. And that's basically follows the property. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 44 Ms. Brock - Okay. And then a new paragraph g., how many years out do you want them to replace trees that do not survive? Board Member Erb - Say that again. Chairperson Howe -.How many years out do we want them to replace trees that do not survive? Board Member Riha - They're going to plant this spring? Ms. Brock - We don't have to put a date, we can say number of years. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, it depends on how quickly some of the trees grow, I mean, if it's a slow - growing tree like some oaks for instance, it's not going to get tall enough, not for the deer not to nibble on them, for quite a while, and they love oaks, at least in my yard, but then there might be other trees that are faster growing, so it is a little hard to determine.... Chairperson Howe - Is this going to be enforceable? How does something like this... Mr. Walker- Well,... Ms. Brock - If they don't comply they won't get building permits... Mr. Kanter - Could we require a letter of credit? Ms. Brock - Well I was going to require a performance bond. Board Member Riha - Yeah because... Ms. Brock - So I just need to know the period of time and then I can give you the language. Board Member Riha - Yeah, I think it's typical, you know, that in a kind of tree planting effort, you would go in after a period of time and check it out, and replant trees that have ... I would think maybe two years would be a good point at which to go in ... one or two years. Board Member Hoffmann - To go in, but when do we stop going in... Mr. Kanter -- ...to monitor, but at least five years to ensure... Board Member Riha - Well that's when I would start, anyway, because you can begin to - tell -if there's - trees- .. -. - -- - - - -- - - — - Ms. Brock - Well, let me give you the language then. A new paragraph g., PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 45 g. Replacement in -kind of trees depicted on Landscape Plan Sheet L01 that do not survive for a period of 5 years and submission of a performance bond satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town to ensure replacement of such trees that do not survive for a period of 5 years. Ms. Ritter — Is it tree - for -tree then? Is that what we're doing? Chairperson Howe — I think it should be a percentage because I mean, we know they are expecting some. Mr. Walker — There's going to be some mortality. Board Member Erb — We could go with the 95 %. Chairperson Howe — Was that the percentage you used before? Ms. Palmer — That is the percentage that RPM is finding survival, yes. Board Member Riha — Okay. Yeah, Board Member Hoffmann — This is a repl( don't want to see a half- hearted effort. I recreate, but to get as close to what it was replacement and I would actually prefer to some checking up to see if the trees have don't know if that's enough for some trees. icement for trees that were quite mature. I would like to see a real good effort to, not before. So I would like to see a tree - for -tree have the agreement state that there will be survived for a longer period than 5 years. I So I would say 10 years to be safe. Board Member Wilcox — I'm comfortable with 5. Chairperson Howe — I'm comfortable with 5 and I think the tree - for -tree replacement might be a little too much to ask too, because they are expecting that some... Board Member Riha — Right, so 95... Board Member Erb — Eva, we're thinking that some over planting has been built into it already to allow for a 5% loss. That's what we're thinking. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to hear somebody say that who's representing the company... Chairperson Howe — It was said earlier. Board Member Erb — I think that's what was.... Board Member Riha — She said that they almost doubled their recommendation... Ms. Palmer — They recommended 50 -60 trees per acre with their particular trees and their rate of survival. Other standards with conventional trees might recommend 100- PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 46 200. We went with the 100. So, in conventional standards you would be expecting 70 out of 100 to survive and that would be sort of a normal re- forestation rate. So, we're somewhere in- between but I think we are above what would be expected. Board Member Hoffmann — I stand by what I said. Ms. Brock -- Let me modify this g. to "if at least 95% -of the trees planted as depicted on Landscape Plan .Sheet L01 do not survive on an annual basis, replacement in -kind of said trees on an annual basis for a period of 5 years and the submission of a performance bond satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town to assure the replacement of such trees for a period of at least 5 years. I had some language about deed restrictions for the rain gardens, I guess, since we are assuming that the plans as submitted will be approved. So I'll do that. So that would be a new paragraph h. h. Imposition of deed restrictions for all lots, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, that prohibit the construction or erection of any structures on the rain gardens shown on site plan Sheet C01. And ... is that okay ... and finally, there was at least one condition from your 2003 approval that I thought we should add to this approval, and you'll also want to look and see if there's anything else in your conditions from 2003 that haven't been met yet that you need to carry over to this approval, but, I recommend added a new paragraph i. Incorporation in all deeds to future homeowners of a statement that pesticide and herbicide use on their properties should be limited as the entire area drains into the Six Mile Creek Watershed and City of Ithaca water supply. And I'll have to look to Staff to tell me if any of these other conditions from 2003 are still outstanding and need to be carried over. Chairperson Howe — So far the changes, Larry and Hollis... Board Member Thayer — We haven't moved... Board Member Erb — We haven't moved this one yet...that was the SEOR. Chairperson Howe — Did anyone else see any other conditions from 2003 that needed to be carried over? (no) Staff, you're okay as well? (yes) Ms. Brock — Okay. That is it. Chairperson Howe — And we've got the change to the Short Environmental Assessment Form, as noted. Does somebody want to move the resolution? I'll move the resolution. Is there a second? PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 47 Board Member Thayer — I'll second. Chairperson Howe — Larry. All those in favor, raise your hands ... any opposition?.. so, it's carried minus one vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2008 - 013 Modification of Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Approval of a fill permit Wiedmaier Court Five -Lot Subdivision Slaterville Road & Burns Road Tax Parcel No. 56 -4 -1.22, 5604-19230 568-4 -19247 56. -4 -1.25 and 56. -4 -1.26 Planning Board, February 5, 2008 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of modification of Subdivision Approval for the five -lot subdivision located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56.4-1.23, 56.4-1.24. 56.4-1.251 56.4-1.26 Medium Density Residential Zone, and Tax Parcel No. 56 -4 -1.22, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zone, as'well as a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Special Approval of a fill permit for the same property. The 2003 subdivision approval involved subdividing a 163+ /- acre parcel into four lots, ranging in size from approximately 0.8 acres to 1.8 acres, and one 12.3 +/- acre lot. Recently, in preparation of a housing site on the 12.3 acre lot (Lot 5), the applicant performed extensive earthwork and clearing which does not conform with the subdivision approval, and is in violation of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -217, because the action involved the excavation of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of material without obtaining prior approval. The current application includes a restoration plan which calls for applying a native seed mix and planting approximately 250 trees, along with new stormwater management controls and submission of revised drawings. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant; Frank L. Santelli, P.E., T.G. Miller, P.C., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to modification of the Subdivision Approval, has, on February 5, 2008, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 48 3. The Planning Board, has held a public hearing. on February 5, 2008, and has reviewed and accepted as adequate a report entitled, "Wiedmaier Court Subdivision, Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Fill Permit Application" prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers & Surveyors, dated December 14, 2007, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Modification of Subdivision Approval for the previously approved five -lot subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56- 4 -1.22, 56.4-1.239 56. -4 -1.24, 56. -4 -1.25, 56. -4 -1.26 located on the southwest corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, as shown in the report entitled "Wiedmaier Court Subdivision, Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Fill Permit Application" dated December 14, 20072 subject to the following conditions: a. Obtaining Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the fill permit, including remediation plan, prior to signing of the revised plat by the Planning Board Chair, and b. Obtaining approval from NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 7, of the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prior to issuance of any building permit for Lots 1, 2, or 5 in the Subdivision, if significant changes are made to said plan by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, as determined by the Town Engineer, then the submission of an application for a modification of this subdivision approval shall be made to the Planning Board, and C. Submission of a revised subdivision plat clearly indicating the areas to be left in a natural state by designating each as a "permanent no disturbance area ", with notes describing that the no .disturbance area is to remain. un- mowed and undisturbed in perpetuity, with notes describing that the "no- disturbance area" contains restrictions including, but not limited to, no mowing, no logging, no removal of trees other than those that pose a hazard to the public, no buildings, paved areas or other structures shall be constructed and storage of construction equipment and machinery shall be prohibited, and d. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the revised subdivision plat, and three dark - lined prints prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, with submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, prior to issuance of any building permits for Lots 1, 2, or 5 in the Subdivision, and e. Issuance of the necessary Excavation /Fill Permit prior to any further disturbances or construction activities on the site, and PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 49 f. Removal of any and all of the pavilions that do not comply with the provisions of Chapter 270, titled "Zoning" of the Town of Ithaca Code, or relocation of any non - complying pavilions so that they comply with all applicable Town of Ithaca Code provisions, prior to issuance of any building permits on Lots 1, 2, and 5, and g. If at least 95% of the trees planted as depicted on Landscape Plan Sheet L01 do not survive on an annual basis, replacement in -kind of said trees on an annual basis for a period of 5 years and the submission of a performance bond satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town to 'assure the replacement of such trees for a period of at least 5 years. h. Imposition of deed restrictions for all lots, subject to the approval of the Attorney for the Town, that prohibit the construction or erection of any structures on the rain - gardens shown on site plan Sheet C01. i. Incorporation in all deeds to future homeowners of a statement that pesticide and herbicide use on their properties should be limited as the entire area drains into the Six Mile Creek Watershed and City of Ithaca water supply. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board, hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant Special Approval for the fill permit, including the remediation plan for the properties and the stormwater management practices, as shown in the Wiedmaier Court Subdivision, Slaterville Road and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Fill Permit Application" prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers & Surveyors, dated December 14, 2007. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Howe, Thayer, Riha, Wilcox and Erb. Nays: Hoffmann Absent: Conneman The motion was passed 5 in favor, one opposed. Chairperson Howe — Our next agenda item is PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 50 Presentation and discussion of Draft Scoping Document for the Environmental Impact Statement regarding the proposed Holochuck Subdivision located between Trumansburg Road and Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Howe — Is there anyone here representing the subdivision that would like to make a short presentation? David Parks, 200 East Buffalo Street Mark Parker, Keystone Associates, 229 -231 State St., Binghamton Mr. Parks — We are back in front of the Board ... we have submitted a proposed Draft Environmental Scoping Document and we are asking the Board to accept that. At least at this stage ... we understand that we will be scheduling a public hearing and we'll have a comment period to either add or subtract from the document as needed to finalize the whole process but we certainly welcome any input at this point. If there are any comments to be made about the document at this time, or if there anybody needs to, we can go through the project again... Chairperson Howe — I think we'll just ... if specific questions come up, we'll ask you to address specific aspects of the proposal. So everyone knows... similar to what we went through with Ithaca College and the DEIS, so we're ... to look at the scoping document... do we feel that they've covered the key issues adequately? Are there things that we don't see here that you want to make sure are addressed? This is going to come before the public, they'll have a chance to give input probably at our ... well, we'll decide that if we get to the resolution, which that would be in March. So, who ... Hollis, do you want to start ... is there anything that you saw? Board Member Erb — Yes. I didn't see any consideration of light, and I know that they are now going to be immediately behind neighbors that have only had brush behind them previously. I don't know whether it's appropriate at this stage, but I would like some discussion about how this contributes to the Town's plan for affordable housing. And I wasn't particularly comfortable with the ... under point 7, on page 2, that that also included bikes, pedestrians... Chairperson Howe — I'm sorry...where were you? Board Member Erb — I was on Page 2, Point 7, under Transportation. And I didn't see that that particularly covered pedestrians, bicycles ... we just learned the multi - modality term. So those were the three items that struck me. Mr. Kanter — When you look at Item G, starting on Page 7, it expands significantly on the transportation issue, but if you want, we could certainly add a brief reference on Page 2 as you are suggesting. Board Member Erb — Well, under G I see things talking about connections to Cayuga Medical Center but, I would just really like to make sure that that's also a discussion. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 51 Chairperson Howe — And as we...if you hear people say things, if you have any questions about them... Mr. Parks — Yes, and on that particular issue, with regard to bicycle trails, there is pedestrian traffic there ... the majority of the property is going to be owned by the State Parks and they are planning on putting in trails that would link it down to the lower end where the Diamond Trail is. As it stands right now, except for extremely local traffic, local to this particular subdivision, I don't know that riding bicycle, I mean if somebody were planning on riding a bicycle from this subdivision to downtown to come to work, whether that is something that we would necessarily address with this particular ... at least not at this stage... Chairperson Howe — I think you are probably talking more about linkages. Making sure that there is access to wherever they need to get. Mr. Parks — So for instance, we were planning on addressing pedestrian trails from the, at least the outer edge of where the subdivision would end and to the nearest access to the bus, where the hospital is and then possibly having a parking area there for people to drive up to the parking lot and be able to walk to the bus. Mr. Kanter — So maybe if ... as each point comes up and we try to rectify it ... On page 2, #7, why don't we, just at the end of that... existing language, add "and need for bicycle and pedestrian trails and linkages." Chairperson Howe — And David, when you talk you'll have to speak more directly into the mic okay. Susan... Hollis, was that it for now? Board Member Erb — Yeah, affordable housing, lighting and those linkages. Ms. Brock — We should deal with those others too. Mr. Kanter — Okay. Let's go back to those. Chairperson Howe — Is affordable housing, Jonathan, is there a place to make note of that? Mr. Kanter — I think we saw something in there. Let's see if we can find it because know you raised that, Chris, when you were reviewing it. Board Member Riha — Community Character? Chairperson Howe — And while we're looking too, it's the lighting issue so...if you see lighting.... Mr. Parks — I believe we did discuss lighting a little bit at our last meeting and the general consensus was that the, that streetlights wouldn't necessarily be required or really desirable in this particular area and in which case the only lighting would be PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 52 passing traffic or people's lighting in their homes. There would be lighting for the intersections, but beyond that, so it is something we could... Chairperson Howe — It's to address it so we can... Mr. Parks — so we can, yeah... Board Member Erb — I think I just learned from the Ithaca College project that even things you think aren't going to have any impact need to be in the scoping document so we can discuss and decide whether we think there's not going to be any impact and so the neighbors can respond. -Mr: Parks — Okay, so we will- add that either to the Transportation section of the Aesthetic Resources, or I suppose it could also fall into the Community Character. Mr. Kanter — It would probably be under E, Aesthetic Resources I think, for lighting. Ms. Balestra — Regarding affordable housing, on Page 3 under #2, Description of the Proposed Action ... the last two sentences; "An analysis of the target market for the proposed subdivision and how the development relates to the Ithaca housing needs." sort of alludes to affordable housing. Board Member Erb — I saw that but I didn't see that ... I didn't see the key word phrase of "affordable housing". Chairperson Howe — So a modification including "affordable housing" or something. know Susan had ... so I think the question about the lighting is ... we don't know yet whether there would be an environmental impact. So Susan, isn't it okay... Ms. Brock — It's okay, yes. Board Member Hoffmann — And just to expand a little bit on that ... Very often it's not just street lights but the lights on the buildings to light up the entryways and such, they also have to be shielded because they also can be problems. Chairperson Howe — Okay. Susan. Board Member Riha — Okay. A couple of issues ... One, on Page 5 under C Surface and Groundwater Resources, Drainage Characteristics, and Surface Water Runoff ... I think because this will come up, I think you have to make some statements about what the impact will be on Cayuga Lake and put that in explicitly. On Page 6, D2, "perform field surveys of the project site", 1 think you need to say something about the length of those surveys and when you're going to do them. The time of year. Under E, Aesthetic Resources, Point 4, I'm not sure what you mean by... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 53 Board Member Hoffmann — What page are you on? Board Member Riha — Page 6, D2... Board Member Thayer -- ...along Trumansburg Road... Board Member Riha — Yeah, along Trumansburg Road, but also you just say the "east and west shores of Cayuga Lake" and at some point you make reference to a few sites. I mean, oh, "critical receptor points", but I think for this project and given its impact on the viewshed of the southern part of Cayuga Lake, it has to be clear exactly what it's going to look like. No matter where you are I think, in Ithaca, there's ... I mean, just because you pick a few sites and you don't see much of it, there's other sites that you're seeing a lot of it, we gotta know that. -So I think you have to make a big coverage of... Board Member Erb — Low and high... Board Member Riha -- ...high and low ... wherever you are ... down in the City, up on the...you know, how this is going to look because basically, we're not going to want to see it because people want to look at the southern end of Cayuga Lake and see woods. Mr. Parks — No, I believe... Board Member Riha — So we want to be convinced that it's going to ... what we see now, after this development goes up, we're going to still be seeing what we see now. Mr. Parks — Okay. I believe, and then, just for clarification purposes, we do have, on Item E3, I guess that's what we were alluding to as far as the... Board Member Riha — "Design line of sight "? Okay. Mr. Parks — Yeah, different views, but we do understand and we will modify that language too. Board Member Riha — Okay, because if we're not going to see what we now see, people are going to want to know what they're going to see. Mr. Parks — It is, and it's a very visible site, and frankly, I think you can see it from pretty much.... Board Member Riha — Anywhere. Mr. Parks — Except from maybe right downtown here, it's sort of shielded a little bit. Board Member Riha — Right, so then I_think under 6A, Photograph of existing views of the project site, preferably during leaf -off conditions ... I think we're going to want them during leaf -off conditions. Board Member Wilcox — Hurry up and do it. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 54 Board Member Riha — Yeah, you better hurry up and do it because that's come up before and people get concerned when you take these view with all the leaves on the trees. Otherwise, if you're doing during the summer, people are going to say we can't make a decision until we see what it looks like... Mr. Parks — I know, and, the area that's actually going to be developed, right now, for the most part is open area and so there are, we don't expect to have major removing of trees or anything of that nature. Most of that area is actually being dedicated and so, when we do take the pictures, we will try to take them before springtime and we'll catch exactly the way it looks right now. Chairperson Howe — Susan, on your point of visual impact, I was expecting Susan Brock to whisper in my ear, and she did ... that we will really need to be very specific about where we want... Board Member Riha — Exactly. Board Member Thayer — Be specific. Chairperson Howe — Do we do that now? I mean, our ... is there time when we bring this to the public? Mr. Kanter — Well I think we could, if there are definite ones we know now we should add them in and then obtain further comments from the public and then the Board can also expand on it at that time. Chairperson Howe — so if you know of a few right now to just mention quickly... Board Member Riha — Yeah, or, you know, the Planning Staff I'm sure knows some of the major... Board Member Erb — Are there ... some technically would look in this direction? of the critical proposed viewsheds that Board Member Riha — You know, you're looking off Cornell from my view, at the top of Bradfield Hall, I look right at that site. So you could take a picture from my office. Mr. Parks — I was going to say, we could propose ... just off the top of my head I can think of a few of them. One starting up towards Ithaca College, that area definitely would be... Board Member Thayer — 96B ... yeah, Mr. Parks — Right, and then moving towards, right at Cornell, from one of the buildings we can definitely get a vantage point from there. Board Member Riha — From the lake, I would think the lake... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 55 Ms. Brock —The Town park... Board Member Riha — Right, the Town park,.Stewart Park... Mr. Kanter — Up East Shore Drive... Board Member Riha — Right now, East Shore Drive... Mr. Parks — Right now I think you would be able to get a vantage point from Cayuga Heights. Once the leaves are up it might be difficult from up there unless you get on top of a building, but, and then we can do the lakefront down East Shore Drive, just up a little bit, looking up that way. Mr. Kanter — Also, I think the Route 13 stretch where you're coming down the hill from the mall... Board Member Riha — Yeah... Board Member Thayer — Right... Board Member Wilcox — At the Cayuga Heights exit ... what's called the Cayuga Heights exit. Board Member Riha — Just below the sharp turn. Mr. Parks — Which I believe, without going really far north, that would pretty much be the extent of what we would be able to see from that. So if the Board is okay with that, at least for now... Chairperson Howe — That's a good starting list and then we can... Board Member Riha — Yeah, and then we can add to it... Board Member Erb — You might take one farther north to prove that it can't be seen from farther north. Chairperson Howe — Yeah, I believe it can be. I mean, you have, especially during clear days, you do have a very clear view up and down the lake and frankly, we could go probably very far up north, but whether or not that would be an environmental impact that this Town Planning Board would be interested in, that's the... Board Member Erb — There's another park up on the lake that's not that far... - --Ms.-Brock — Meyers... _ -- _ - - -- Board Member Erb — Right, Meyer's Point. How about from there, because it's a public park. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 56 Board Member Wilcox — It's in the Town of Lansing. Board Member Erb— I don't care. I would...l... Mr. Kanter — It's legitimate to look at impacts outside of the Town boundaries. Board Member Erb — Yeah. The point being, if you take a picture from there and it's clear that it can't be seen, we've protect... we've made sure that we've protected an adjacent community's park. That's my point. I didn't mean I didn't care ... I would care very much if they said, well we don't care what it does to the Town of Ithaca as long as it doesn't impact us. Ms. Brock — What about Stewart Park? Board Member Riha — Stewart Park we should definitely... Board Member Erb — I thought you already said... Ms. Brock — We said the Town park... Board Member Riha — Oh, the Stewart Park ... I don't know if anywhere from Cass Park you would see it... Mr. Parks — No, but we can take a picture to show that. Board Member Erb — If you could. The pictures that show it isn't going to be seen from here are valuable. Mr. Parks — Yes, and I believe even downtown, even if you are on the parking garage, right over here, you wouldn't be able to see any of it, but we can take the picture. Chairperson Howe — Okay, I think we've got the point. This is a time check, it's 20 of 10:00 ... weIre doing pretty well but we do want to end at 10:00 if possible, so, Susan, was there anything else? Board Member Riha — Yeah, one little thing ... on Page 9, under 6C you say "alternatives to the scale and /or magnitude of the project, including fewer numbers of units, alternative plan layouts" that's all good, and "the alternative reconfiguration of the secondary access drive that would avoid or mitigate impacts to the slope." The secondary access drive is? Just explain that once just so I'm sure I know what that means. Mr. Parks — Secondary access is right here, and the slope of this area is actually the _steepest_of_anywhere _ eIse on-the-property. So-that's what it's referring to. Board Member Riha — Okay, thank you. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 57 Board Member Thayer — And that brings me to the traffic situation which we all know is going to be bad, and it's getting worse. Another intersection that's not specifically outlined is Taughannock Boulevard on Route 96 which I think should be added. Board Member Hoffmann — What page are you on? Board Member Thayer — Page 8, top of the page ... and then you've mentioned turning lanes, which I think are becoming more and more important on that road. I drive up 96 four or five times a day and turn left on Bundy. Just before I turn left there's a sign from the State that says "do not drive on the shoulder" it's against the law and all that. I crowd the center line to make my left turn, but people dive past me bang, bang, bang. A turning lane would be a great asset there for safety. And turning right up, going north, wouldn't be so bad into your project, but coming back out could be a problem. So, well, you know, you should specifically look at turning lanes as you've outlined but ... that's pretty important ... all types of traffic control devices are important. Anything that you can come up with to mediate that would be a help, for sure. Mr. Parks — No, and it would be our expectation that at a minimum we're going to just have a light to break up traffic ... would be helpful, from a lot of the comments that we have heard. So we are... Board Member Thayer — The light at the hospital is a help, but another one would be more of a help. Chairperson Howe — Anything else Larry? Board Member Thayer — Well, we talked definitely is not possible, to go down to the have you look at but I know it's not possible. about another access road which I guess Boulevard, so...that thought, I would like to Mr. Kanter — Well, could we put that under Alternatives, maybe... Ms. Brock — Why isn't it possible? Mr. Walker — It depends how many trees you want to kill and how big a switchback you want to have. Board Member Thayer — yeah, it's going to be a switchback I guess... Ms. Brock — Yeah, but it's not legally impossible... it's physically not desirable... Mr. Walker — Yeah, anything is possible... —.--Board Mem_ber_Wilcox — Physically it may not make sense.... Chairperson Howe — It would be interesting to look into that. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 58 Mr. Kanter — Why don't we put something in the Alternatives section on Page 9. How would be word that Larry... Board Member Wilcox — Access to Route 89 right ... the secondary road... Board Member Thayer — Exactly. Chairperson Howe — Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — A lot of the things that I wanted to talk about have been mentioned already, but, specifically the impacts on Cayuga Lake are very important and the view impacts too ... I have some additions to what you already heard and that is that you include views not just from the west and east shores of Cayuga Lake but from East Hill and South Hill, from the waterline to the very top. And actually you see from the very top more than you do from the edge of Cayuga Lake, and you see over great distances that way. Mr. Parks — So you're talking where East Hill Plaza is? Over that way? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, you have already gotten some sites, I will add something more for you to think about. The Town, the Town's Conservation Board has for a long time worked on selecting views that need to be saved and there's a list available of the top ten views, and if you check with Staff, I am sure you can get a copy of that... Board Member Erb — That's what I ... it was to that that I was trying to allude. Board Member Hoffmann — So with that list in -hand you can go out to sites and look at this site from there and decide whether you can see the site or not and what impact it will have. I will encourage you to not only take photographs when the leaves are off, but on clear days. That means summer days are out because it's too hazy ... clear days and preferably with the sun shining on your site so your site is not in shadow. That means if you take it from East Hill or South Hill you do it in the morning. Mr. Parks — Yes, and we're going to try to do two things. One, we will try to take pictures that are very visible, with the leaves off. But we would also like to show you what the site will look like with the leaves on. You will see that the majority of the trees are there and they do shield the site from view for the most part. Board Member Hoffmann — They may shield the site, they may not shield the buildings. There's one place that I would like you to go and take a look and that is, I was astonished myself, when I walked across the bridge that goes across Route 13, it's Cayuga Heights Road. You stand on that bridge and you look over to West Hill and the -- development across- from- the - hospital- sticks- out - like -a -sore thumb.... Board Member Riha — I look at it every day ... it is not good. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 59 Board Member Thayer — Plus the hospital, plus PRI, you can see them all. I mean, I don't know how we're going to judge a viewshed when there are so many blights there already and... Board Member Hoffmann — Well, that one in particular I was (inaudible) to see how, what an impact it had made. But use that as a reference point when you try to judge the impact this might have. Let's see... Board Member Wilcox — Are we judging the impact where people don't live? Board Member Hoffmann — No, this is the other point that I was going to mention to you ... In our view study, we made a point at looking at views from public places, where lots of people can see them, so, roads that are driven a lot by people to and from work, parks where, which are public places... anybody has access to it. The views you see from those places are the really important ones. Many private individuals have great views from their homes or from their offices, but those are not accessible to everyone. So it is the views that are accessible to everybody that are the most important. Chairperson Howe — And that's sort of all for views. I think we've covered views and we will have opportunities to... Board Member Hoffmann — But I would also like to, the final thing about that is the neighbors to the west of this property will also be impacted. So make sure that you look from that side too. Take a little on West Hill to the west of your proposed site. Mr. Parks — Across the street you mean? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, you have to go around and see, imagine ... if you had balloons, by the way, which I would urge you to do, to indicate the height of the building, then you can see where the buildings can be seen from, when you take the photographs, and then you can judge the impact. Let's see....there were some other things that I had ... on Page 3, you have a description of the proposed action and you list all kinds of different things like color finishes and so on of the buildings. It's important to have the sizes of the buildings, the dimensions. It's also important to show the parking in the road details. I think I don't have too much more than this.... On Page 8, according to my notes ... the last sentence I don't understand. It says "discussion of the routes, frequency and duration of construction vehicular traffic and impacts on traffic operation." And then it says "if required, discuss proposed measures for maintenance and protection of traffic." What do you mean by that. ___Mr._Parker.— What_page wer_eyouu_r_eferring to. again? _ Board Member Erb — Page 8, #91 Board Member Thayer = During the construction ... deterioration of the roads. PB M -08 Pg. 60 Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I also wondered what "if required" means in this case. Mr. Parker — Well after studying it, if it is deemed required to take measures of maintenance and protection of certain traffics, I think that's what he's talking about, during the construction. Board Member Wilcox — Meaning if we require it? Mr. Parker — If it's deemed required through the study. Board Member Erb — I would take out the words "if required ". You're trying to present us with a document, so we can look at it. Board Member Wilcox — Yeah, if you say "discuss proposed measures" you could determine no proposed measures are necessary. Mr. Parks — Okay. We'll scratch the "if required ". Board Member Erb — We would like you to discuss proposed measures... Mr. Parker — So it is required. Chairperson Howe — Fred, did you have... Board Member Wilcox — Yes, just a couple comments and we have a visual coming down to each individual. (handout) Other than what has been discussed, one of my concerns is that the proposal that we have seen, all of the property to be developed will be subdivided and put into the hands of the homeowners, or the townhouse owners. What you have in front of you is a map and on the right side, near the number 1, is an existing townhouse subdivision in the Town of Ithaca ... if there's an available one we should give it to the applicant. This happens to be Deer Run, and notice that in Deer Run, notice all the open space ... what appears to be open space. That is land, that is owned, that is land owned by the Deer Run Homeowners' Association. The individual homeowners own those tiny little rectangles. Most of the land is owned by the Homeowners' Association. My point being that you have one entity that controls the land behind the houses that abuts the neighboring land owners and if we're to put in some sort of buffer potentially, between this development and the existing neighbors. I would rather deal with one legal entity, the Holochuck Home's Homeowners' Association rather than the potential of 106 homeowners who own the land all the way back. So one of the things I'd like looked at, whether it's in Community Character or Alternatives, is changing the proposed subdivision so that as much land as possible is retained in the owner ship of the Homeowners' Association and not the individual townhouse buyers, because I think that gives us more control. Chairperson Howe — So you're talking about the dark green... PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 61 Board Member Wilcox — Correct. The map we say the last time the applicant was here, the time before, showed lot -lines which essentially divvied up the entire parcel, other than the detention ponds and the area to be protected, divvied up the entire parcel to the homeowners. Chairperson Howe — So is that something.... All — Yes... Board Member Wilcox — The other thing I want to just mention was visual impacts are important and I had a brief conversation with Jon Kanter yesterday. Under our subdivision regulations, excuse me, under our cluster regulations, we have what I will call "architectural review" which we normally don't and I do not want to see 100 -106, 110 units that look the same. We ... architectural variety is going to be crucial in this area. I don't know how you put that in a scoping document. Its visual impact potential, but it's certainly something that I'm going to be looking at. Being someone who lives in a townhouse environment, for the record. Mr. Kanter —That one maybe could go under Page 6, E, Aesthetic Resources, #5, where it says "describe project components that may result in the change in the views from critical receptor points" and then add something like, "description of building colors, materials, height, roof pitch, etc. Chairperson Howe — And then Jonathan, do you have a comment about his other... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I kind of like the idea about putting the reference of the common - land ownership under Alternatives on Page 9 by adding an e. So something like "Discuss the alternative of placing open land and buffers in common - ownership as opposed to splitting land up into separate ownership." Board Member Wilcox — He says it much better than I did, in terms of getting it into the document. Mr. Parks — Now in terms of the aesthetic view. In terms of studying that for purposes of the impact, the visual impact that it's going to have. Would you suggest a public poll to see whether people like the same looking... because I know people that enjoy the aesthetic views of townhouse or a development that look ... you know, the uniformity is calming to their system, so ... and some of the subdivisions, or the developments that we do have in the area where it seems more hodgepodge and it's not really, there's no uniformity to it, can actually be negative in many ways. And so, before we go down that road, I would like some clarification as to what... Board Member Wilcox — I guess I'll speak up. There's clearly no intent on my part to -- think- that -this will wind_up_looking_.like _ a 5.0--lot-subdivision where the lots, the homes get built over a period of 20 years and you have significant architectural differences. Nonetheless, as evidences by the subdivision that I live in, one can take certain architectural plans for the various townhomes and put them together in combinations, whether it's a 2 -story, a 1 -story, you know, whether it's got a sunken living room or not, PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 62 where you could put these units, individual units together to create architectural diversity. Whether it's rooflines, whether it's the front of the buildings in terms of the mass presented, that there are setbacks from the road in some areas of the building and not others, and again, I live in Deer Run and you can drive through Deer Run and get an idea of what they did and how they did it with color and roof heights, for example. This is not going to look like, as I said, it could never look like a downtown area with houses build over a 50 -year span, I understand that, but neither do I think we want them to look like the same as you could ride down the street. Mr. Parks — Right. I guess my confusion is, when we're studying, when we're doing a study, and we are presenting you with evidence to support whatever it is the conclusions that we're drawing from, the document, we have to have some empirical evidence to support our position and the visual impacts that you're describing are more of a personal taste than ... at least that's my perception of that. I would have a hard time coming up with empirical evidence to support one way or the other on that particular issue. Chairperson Howe — Eva wanted to say something. Board Member Hoffmann— One of the things that we found when we did the study of important views, and there were surveys done, over a long period of time, trying to solicit what people felt about the views and what they valued is that it's the beautiful green, wooded hillsides that a lot of people enjoyed. So when a place like Deer Run is built, at the ridgeline, with stark white or light gray buildings, no trees, it's just sort of an area that's cleared and filled with these stark white houses and the sun shines on that and it really stands out. So there are things that one can do to lesson that kind of impact. One can leave a lot of trees, between the houses, as well as in front. One can choose colors that blend in better with a green hillside. I'm not saying green houses, but darker colors, more natural tree trunk or earth colors instead of the traditional Greek Revival type white house which really stand out. Mr. Parks — And I do understand that part of it because the visual impact in terms of coloring, in terms of what you're going to see across the lake, I do understand that. But when I comes to the architectural styles, or some of the other finer points of how the development is going to look ... and I don't mind, I mean, we will certainly do that if that is the direction the Board wants us to take, but, in terms of making sure that I understand, and we understand exactly where we're going and how far we're going to go with that... Board Member Erb — Th looking for a little variety all the buildings face in unbroken sidewalls that And so, it's not trying to with in_the_ —style..__ ere's a difference between selecting an architectural style and within the style that you select. And having all the long axis of exactly the same angle is unappealing. Having completely are going to be visible and just have that, that's unappealing. dictate a particular style, it's asking for some variety, slightly, Board Member Wilcox —The question remains, is this SEQR or Site Plan? Mr. Kanter —Yes and no. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 63 Board Member Erb — But the balloons should be at the tallest buildings. Chairperson Howe — I think it's just to give some general indication that the neighbors are also looking at something fairly attractive and... Mr. Parks — No, and, I do understand that... Board Member Erb — And we are not going to want orange roofs and bright blue... Mr. Kanter — What I think you will need to do though, and it may not be totally in the environmental impact statement, is, when this comes for preliminary subdivision approval for the cluster development, as Fred indicated, the cluster regulations give the Board the authority to basically be a- design review board so they are going to want to see the details of the proposed building... Mr. Parks — And it is our intent to address as many of those issues up front in the... Mr. Kanter — So you may want to, in the EIS, provide, like maybe under Alternatives, those, you know, different concepts of what you have in mind so that at that earlier point, the Board will be able to provide feedback to you. Mr. Parks — That's great. Chairperson. Howe — So, we have, I think, noted everything that we have covered, I see people taking notes on this...do we have further questions that we want addressed before we look at this potential resolution? Ms. Brock — I just saw one inconsistency between the Long Environmental Assessment Form and the Draft Scope ... which is that the intermittent streams referred to at the bottom of page 1 and again on page 4, section b, the draft Scope refers to them as "numerous small intermittent streams and the Long Environmental Assessment Form said "several of these streams are relatively large." So I would suggest just deleting the word "small" in both locations. Chairperson Howe — There seems to be agreement with that change ... Since the notes are on other peoples packets ... can we ... how do we move forward on the resolution without ... do we have to go through and talk about all the changes that we've made to the Draft Scoping Document? Board Member Erb — Can we do it.... Mr. Kanter — I think probably what you could do is in the resolution, again, this is not accepting this as a final scoping document but rather as a document sufficient for a — public-- scoping.- .- .to— ma..ybe— make- _some_refe.r_ence_to__the_ scope_ as revised by discussion.... Ms. Brock — As revised by the Planning Board at its February 5, 2008 meeting. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 64 Board Member Wilcox — Hey Rod, given the number of people in the audience, you might want to just read the two short resolved clauses so that the members of the audience know exactly what we're doing tonight. Board Member Hoffmann — Before you do that, can I add one thing ... it doesn't actually say anything about flying balloons to show where the high points of the buildings are.... Board Member Wilcox — You know what ... I'm sorry, we're running out of time...l don't care whether they put balloons up or whether they use some sort of photo - electronic way to simulate the appearance of the building in the photo. That works for me too. Board Member Thayer — I like that better... Board Member Wilcox — That gives them more options... Board Member Hoffmann — Well the balloons would be used by them to draw lines to indicate the building outline... Board Member Wilcox — It could...l'm sure there are other ways that they have to do it accurately, so, they have to do it, my concern is that they do it accurately but not how they approach it. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I agree that it's the accuracy that's important. Chairperson Howe — So Fred, I think that was a good recommendation ... so what we are voting on is a proposed resolution, a SEQR...Acceptance of Draft Scoping Document for the Holochuck Subdivision and the two resolves are: The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has received the Draft Scoping Document and hereby determines that the Draft Scoping Document for the Holochuck Subdivision is adequate to proceed with a public scoping process, and, That the Planning Board will hold a public scoping meeting on ... we haven't filled in the blank...to hear comments from the public and interest involved agencies regarding the scoping content of the draft EIS for the Holochuck Home Subdivision after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public. Ms. Brock — I have two corrections to that ... In the first Resolved, it should be "the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed" not received, and, I'll just keep reading to insert the reference to the revisions.... so let me just start at the beginning... The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the Draft Scoping Document __and hereby determines that the Draft Scoping Document for the Holochuck Home Subdivision, as revised by the Planning Board at its February 5, 2008 meeting, is adequate to proceed with a public scoping process. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 65 Chairperson Howe — And Jonathan, was there a recommendation on what date we would use for the public scoping meeting? Mr. Kanter — No. Board Member Riha = I think it should be first thing on the agenda that day. Chairperson Howe — We have to be careful because... Mr. Kanter — We have Ithaca College coming up on both of the next upcoming meetings, on the 19th for a presentation to the public and then on March 4th for their public hearing. For the February 19th meeting we've got three items, but I'm thinking that February 19th might be too soon to get the proper SEQR notices out and notices to the public. Board Member Wilcox — And get the document revised and get it distributed. Mr. Kanter —Yeah. Mr. Kanter — We could tentatively schedule it for March 4th, although I guess it's not going to be tentative if we put it in this resolution, but again, we have the public hearing on the DEIS on the Ithaca College project... Board Member Riha — No, that's too much... Mr. Kanter — And a couple of other items already... Board Member Wilcox — That ain't gonna work. Mr. Kanter — So the next opportunity is March 18th Chairperson Howe — And what else is currently... Mr. Kanter — Nothing is scheduled for March 18tH Board Member Riha — I think that's what it's going to have to be... Board Member Wilcox — We can't put this and Ithaca College ... it's not going to work. Mr. Kanter — So March 18th Board Member Wilcox Somebody is going to show up and go home and never get to... Chairperson Howe — And yes, thank you everyone for being patient with us to get to this agenda item, so ... is ... would someone like to move....are there any other changes to the resolution? PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 66 Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Howe — Moved by Susan Riha, seconded by Fred ... all those in favor, any opposed? ... any abstentions? ... it's unanimous ... So you know what you need to do now. You'll be in touch with Staff. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. SEQR — Acceptance of Draft Scoping Document Holochuck Homes Subdivision Tax Parcel No's. 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -372 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39 NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard) Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 5, 2008 MOTION made by Susan Riha, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting on December 18, 20072 declared its intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision (PB Resolution No. 2007- 138) located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.21 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 + /- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west. side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review becaus more than 30 residential units that will owned utilities, and Subdivision Approval by the Planning State Environmental Quality Review Act, of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding the proposal involves construction of be connected to community or publicly 3. A letter from Schlather, Geldenhuys, Stumbar, and Salk, dated December 3, 2007, was received, in which the attorney for the applicant stated .. "the Members of Holochuck Homes, LLC are all in agreement that there is the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact that may arise as a result of the proposed project. As a result, we are in agreement that a positive determination of environmental significance by the Town Planning Board PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 67 is warranted." A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, was submitted by the applicant for the above - described action, and 4. The Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Holochuck Homes, LLC, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by Planning staff, established itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, as described above, and issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on December 18, 2007, in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, for the above referenced action as proposed, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared, and 6. Holochuck Homes, LLC, and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board have agreed that a public scoping process would be initiated to determine the scope and content of the DEIS, and 7. Keystone Associates, LLC, on behalf of Holochuck Homes, LLC, has submitted a Draft Scoping Document for the Board's consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has reviewed the Draft Scoping Document and hereby determines that the Draft Scoping Document for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision, as revised at its February 5, 2008 meeting, is adequate to proceed with a public scoping process, and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board will hold a Public Scoping Meeting on March 18, 2008 to hear comments from the public and interested and involved agencies regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIS for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision, after distributing the Draft Scoping Document to potentially involved and interested agencies and the public. Other Business The beginning of this discussion the previous applicants were leaving and Board members were in discussions. I could not make out with accuracy exactly what was being said. There will be a Special Meeting held for the Town Planning Committee to meet with the Town Planning Board and review their purpose and also how the Planning Board operate. There will be no Attorney for the Town at the next meeting. Motion to adjourn at 10:13p.m. PB 2 -5 -08 Pg. 68 Respe /ifu y s bmitted,/ l Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 5, 2008 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of extending the time period for the Haines Two -Lot Subdivision to meet the conditions of subdivision approval for the property located at 1519 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -1 -1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The approved proposal includes subdividing off a 4.463 + /- acre parcel from the southwestern end of the 8.112 + /- acre parcel, to be consolidated with City of Ithaca watershed lands. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval with conditions for this project on November 21, 2006, and the co- applicant, the City of Ithaca, has requested a 90 day time extension. Patricia F. Haines, Owner /Applicant; City of Ithaca, co- Applicant. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Combined Heat and Power Plant project located to the south of the Central Heating Plant on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63 -1 -5, 63 -1 -8.1 and 63- 1 -8.2, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 65 -3 -1.2 and 65- 3 -1.1, Light Industrial and Low Density Residential (LDR) Zones. The proposed main addition will occupy a footprint of approximately 18,000 square feet to house two combustion turbine generators which will be matched with dual - pressure heat recovery steam generators. The project will also include a new +/- 3,200 square foot employee support addition, two new emergency diesel generators, an aqueous ammonia storage facility, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Tim Peer, P.E., Agent. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding amending the EcoVillage Special Land Use District to allow Bed and Breakfast Facilities. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Wiedmaier Court Subdivision Modification, Southwest Corner of Slaterville Road and Burns Road, 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a modification of the Wiedmaier Court 5 -Lot Subdivision approval and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning of Appeals concerning approval of a fill permit. The Wiedmaier Court 5 -Lot Subdivision, located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79 and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 56 -4 -1.22, 56 -4 -1.23, 56-4 -1.24, 56-4 -1.25, and 56-4 -1.26, was granted subdivision approval in December 2003. The proposal involved subdividing a 16.7 + /- acre parcel into four lots, ranging in size from approximately 0.8 acres to 1.8 acres, and located in the Medium Density Residential Zone, and one 12.3 acre lot located within the CD- Conservation District. Extensive earthwork and clearing recently occurred on the 12.3 acre lot which does not conform with the subdivision approval, and is in violation of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -217, because the action involved the excavation of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of material without obtaining prior approval. The application includes a restoration plan which calls for seeding and planting approximately 250 trees, along with new stormwater controls. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant. 8:15 P.M. Presentation and discussion of the draft scoping document for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision located between Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96) and Taughannock Boulevard (NYS Route 89), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 264-39, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Conservation Zones. Also, consideration of scheduling a public scoping session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the Holochuck Homes Subdivision. The proposal involves the construction of +/- 106 town home type units in a clustered development with two entrances proposed from Trumansburg Road. The development would be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to Trumansburg Road, zoned Low and Medium Density Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The eastern portion of the property will be conveyed to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. Holochuck Homes, LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: January 22, 2008, 10, Other Business: 11. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday February 5, 2008 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, February 5, 2008, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of extending the time period for the Haines Two -Lot Subdivision to meet the conditions of subdivision approval for the property located at 1519 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56- 1-1, Medium Density Residential and Conservation Zones. The approved proposal includes subdividing off a 4.463 + /- acre parcel from the southwestern end of the 8.112 + /- acre parcel, to be consolidated with City -of- -Ithaca watershed lands. The Town of Ithaca- Planning -Board granted Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval with conditions for this project on November 21, 2006, and the co- applicant, the City of Ithaca, has requested a 90 day time extension. Patricia F. Haines, Owner /Applicant; City of Ithaca, co- Applicant. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Combined Heat and Power Plant project located to the south of the Central Heating Plant on Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63 -1 -5, 63 -1 -8.1 and 63- 1 -8.2, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 65 -3 -1.2 and 65- 3 -1.1, Light Industrial and Low Density Residential (LDR) Zones. The proposed main addition will occupy a footprint of approximately 18,000 square feet to house two combustion turbine generators which will be matched with dual - pressure heat recovery steam generators. The project will also include a new +/- 3,200 square foot employee support addition, two new emergency diesel generators, an aqueous ammonia storage facility, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Tim Peer, P.E., Agent. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding amending the EcoVillage Special Land Use District to allow Bed and Breakfast Facilities. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a modification of the Wiedmaier Court 5 -Lot Subdivision approval and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning of Appeals concerning approval of a fill permit. The Wiedmaier Court 5 -Lot Subdivision, located at the southwestern corner of Slaterville Road/NYS Route 79 and Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 56 -4 -1.22, 56 -4 -1.23, 56 -4 -1.24, 56 -4 -1.25, and 56- 4 -1.26, was granted subdivision approval in December 2003. The proposal involved subdividing a 16.7 + /- acre parcel into four lots, ranging in size from approximately 0.8 acres to 1.8 acres, and located in the Medium Density Residential Zone, and one 12.3 acre lot located within the CD- Conservation District. Extensive earthwork and clearing recently occurred on the 12.3 acre lot which does not conform with the subdivision approval, and is in violation of the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -217, because the action involved the excavation of approximately 2,500 cubic yards of material without obtaining prior approval. The application includes a restoration plan which calls for seeding and planting approximately 250 trees, along with new stormwater controls. Clare George Wiedmaier, Owner /Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request riot less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, January 28, 2008 Publish: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 r Wednesday January`30 ?-A08 THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOVi _ N PUBL I, ;'Febn !.By direct ,approval: form the located'at 1519 ':Road, Town' of It Parcel -No. 56-1 um Density Residf Conservafion Zoi :,approved' prop clludes 'subdividir 4.463 + /- .,acre pe 'the southwestern .the 8.1- 1.2 + /-:ac to'' be consolidc aCity of- Ithaca ;lands. The Town `Planning - 4:Board :Preliminary: & .Fir yy )Irap- ' Z[- hi �. c t pplicant; °.thei:_City. ,.'has ,requested° a,= time ':extension. F. Haioes.'G3iuer' mt" City of Ithaca, :ant. _ x' P w Considera inal Site Plan Ap-- iA; T: ikn ' :nrnnntbri I Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street February 5, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name C C rr,� Ltij Cn4(f"_1 J Ga(� ccu�e C�7" j o�� Ckkc) i C' G� Address 0� L tvtL (� c %�/ 0? a 3 -AJ c j '5,1.1;r,r ) .� OWN 1,5 ) e.7 , S2. . P I Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street February 5, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name v 7(6f' %e 1' Address << I p—ISOVG 2� 2- ?j o c //A 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, February 5, 2007 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication January 28, 2008 January 30, 2008 :5..d„a.. QALP�. Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30`h day of January 2008, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 �-