Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-02-17FILE DATE,', . REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK Board Members Present Rod Howe, Chairperson; Fred Wilcox, George Conneman, Hollis Erb, Susan Riha, Jon Bosak. Excused Kevin Talty. Staff Present Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Carrie Coates Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk. Others Paul Carubia, Sue Heavenrich, Marguerite Wells, Aliu Hain, Steve Bauman, Monty S. Bexman, Don R. Crittenden, Kathleen Friedrich, Lew Durland, Ken Walkeys, Marie Harkins, Mary Russell, John Rancich, Joel Harlan, Jonathan Meigs, Rick Couture, Michelle Palmer. Call to Order Chairperson Howe declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and accepted for the. record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 28, 2009 and February 2, 2009, 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 February 2, 2009. Chairperson Howe stated the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be Heard None. PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION The purpose of the Public Scoping Session is to consider public comments on the Draft Scoping Document (dated December 30, 2008, Revised January 12, 2009, Further Revised January 28, 2009) regarding the scope and content for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared for the proposed Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Carrowmoor Development, located off of NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) north of Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves the development of 400 +/- residential condominium units, a community center complex, up to 36,000 square feet of neighborhood oriented commercial uses, up to 32 living units in a residential building for the elderly, a child care center, and other mixed -use development on 1.58 +/- acres. The project will also include multiple new roads and walkways, open recreation areas, stormwater facilities, and community gardens. John Rancich, Owner; Steve Bauman, Agent; Mary Russell, Attorney. The proposed actions, including site plan and subdivision approval by the Planning Board and rezoning to a Planned Development Zone by the Town Board, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review. Chairperson Howe read the public scoping session public notice. He then explained that there would not be a formal presentation of Carrowmoor, but the Board would be hearing public comments. He reminded everyone that the purpose of the evening's comments is to make sure the Board has identified all the environmental elements that need to be looked at during the environmental review process. Chairperson Howe opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Board Member Wilcox asked if Chairperson Howe could explain to the public what the scoping document is. Chairperson Howe explained that the scoping document's primary purpose is to make sure the Board has identified all the environmental aspects to be looked at during the environmental review process. He hoped that people had had a chance to look at the scoping document; it includes issues such as: transportation, community character, lighting, viewshed, nature of businesses, noise, phasing of elements of the proposal, and watershed. Chairperson Howe then asked that comments be kept to 5 minutes, and invited the public to address the board. Joel Harlan came before the board and expressed his excitement and support of the project. He thought that the project would be a learning experience, for everyone with regard to how the project was going to come about. Mr. Harlan hoped the project becomes a reality. He stated that they needed to learn about it, work on it, and that the project was going to take time. He thought that it would be a "good show' if the project becomes a reality. Lew Durland came before the board and read his letter dated January 22, 2009 to Jonathan Kanter, to the Board. See attachment #1. Board Member Riha stated that there is a lot of concern about traffic and one of the issues raised is that traffic is already taking shortcuts through neighborhoods and not traveling on the main roads. She asked if it was explicit in the scoping document that Page 2 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved the neighborhood roads will be studied. Chairperson Howe thought it was up to the Board to make sure that the issue is covered in the scoping document. Board Member. Riha said the Board needs to understand how much traffic is bypassing the main traffic routes right now; this would help the Board to determine the possible impact of the development on traffic. Chairperson Howe noted that there were streets listed in the scoping document, and the Board needs to make sure the smaller streets are included. Attorney' Brock added that the Board also needs to state what it is they want the applicant to do regarding the streets —what type of analysis? Board Member Riha stated she wants to know how much traffic is moving through the neighborhoods, at what times and at what speeds. Mr. Kanter listed some of the intersections included on Page 8 of the scoping document. He thought that the document could be more specific in terms of what it means in terms of neighborhood livability and could be more specific with regard to what neighborhoods need to be targeted for the analysis. Chairperson Howe directed the Board's attention to two letters that were on the table that evening. He then solicited comments from the public. Jonathan Meigs came before the Board and noted that he had not had the opportunity to review the scoping document; some of his comments may be addressed in the document already. Mr. Meigs urged that the scope of the EIS include a comprehensive evaluation of the project's neighborhood commercial component and its potential impacts. He believed that the following should be included in the scoping document: rationale and justification for including a commercial component to the project; a rationale for the amount of space proposed; the types of businesses to be accommodated and space allocations for each; the projected number and frequency of vehicle trips generated within Carrowmoor that might be intercepted by these businesses instead of traveling offsite for shopping; the projected hourly volume of trips originating offsite that might be attracted by the businesses in Carrowmoor; the number, size and type of signs, including lighting of highway signs, to be placed on Route 79 to identify the businesses; provisions for handling waste, especially from food preparation or other activities requiring special treatment; the potential for other commercial development to be attracted to Carrowmoor's vicinity. Mr. Meigs commented that up to 36,000 square feet is a large amount of commercial space to be located in this particular area of the Town, and he wondered how it fits the goals and objectives of the Town plan. Carrowmoor and other proposed developments. in the area significantly reduce the possibility for agriculture uses to remain an important and desirable aspect of the Town's character. Mr. Meigs questioned if the SLUD (or PDZ) provisions were an appropriate mechanism for evaluating the acceptability of the development of Carrowmoor's size and scope. He then thanked the Board. Page 3 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Kathleen Friedrich came before the Board and wondered if the Bundy Road /Route 96 intersection was being considered. Chairperson Howe stated that it is a listed intersection in the scoping document. Ms. Friedrich went on to say that the intersection is a huge problem already. She understood that there was also proposed development across from Bundy Road with .106 proposed units. She thought other proposed developments in the area needed to be considered as well. Ms. Friedrich stated that the proposed developments would wipe out any open space that currently exists. Pat Dutt came before the Board and stated that she has gone over the Full Environmental Assessment Form and has prepared comments. Ms. Dutt then read through her statement and submitted them to the Board. See Attachment #2. Chairperson Howe interrupted Ms. Dutt to explain that the Board would not be making changes to the EAF; the Board was listening to the issues being raised to make sure they. are addressed in the draft scoping document. Ms. Dutt understood and read her closing statements from her submitted comments (Attachment #2). Ms. Dutt then read a prepared statement on behalf of Joan Lawrence. See Attachment #3. Chairperson Howe asked if anyone else wanted to address the Board. There being no one, he left the public hearing open and asked if the developer wanted to make any general comments based upon public comments. John Rancich came before the Board and stated that he thought the comments mentioned that evening were covered in the scoping document. He added that the questions raised will be answered and explored during the EIS process. Mr. Rancich thought that he had already agreed to address almost all the concerns people have had. Board Member Wilcox stated that one starts with concept and ends up with a plan. He asked Mr. Rancich where he was in the process between concept and plan. Mr. Rancich explained that the drawings are placeholders to say what their idea is and that they have not designed the buildings at this point. He has had this idea for years and it has matured over time; he thought that it was becoming a better and better plan. Mr. Rancich emphasized that nothing is cast in stone and the project is a concept that he is trying make happen. He is willing to go through all the necessary studies to address individual comments concerning the concept. Once that is complete and the property is rezoned, he will make a plan and will be coming before the Planning Board with their plan. Chairperson Howe stated that it is hard to do a scoping process on a concept; there needs to be some nuts and bolts to the plan to be able to react to in terms of the environmental assessment. Board Member Wilcox added that that was one of his points and it makes the developer's task harder. He also wanted the public to know that not all numbers are known at this point. Page 4 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 . Approved Board Member Conneman raised two of his concerns; he wanted Mr. Rancich to put in writing what he thought Platinum LEED means, and he wanted Mr. Rancich to hire a traffic engineer who is going to measure what happens in Ithaca, not an engineer who was going to equate Ithaca with Columbus, Ohio based upon a manual. He stated that if Mr. Rancich wanted to convince him to allow Mr. Rancich to build the project then he was going to have to have a traffic engineer who studies the roads in Ithaca and understands what Ithaca is about. Mr. Rancich responded that he hired a traffic engineer a few weeks ago, and it is a firm the Town has worked with before. He said that according to Mr. Kanter, the Town has worked well with them and is very happy with their work. In response to Board Member Conneman's request that the Platinum LEED details be put in writing, Mr. Rancich confessed that he did not know it. He did know that it was available to be done and was an arduous goal to achieve, but if they aim high and end up with gold then that is what the Town will know. Board Member Conneman then requested that the Town be told what silver, gold and platinum are specifically. Board Member Riha asked if LEED certification had anything to do with the SEAR process. Mr. Kanter responded that it has to do with the section on energy resources that the Town identified as a significant issue. He thought it would be helpful for the Board to know what the different potential LEED ratings are. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board could not require LEED certification under current laws. Steve Bauman came before the Board and explained that LEED certification addresses items that are outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement. It also includes the sustainability aspects of the buildings —what type of energy is utilized, occupancy and . density, open space, etc. Each item is ranked by points and the culmination of points determines certification level. Board Member Riha asked if that information would be in the scoping document or in the Environmental Impact Statement. Chairperson Howe thought that it was a separate issue from the scoping document. Referring to parking concerns, Mr. Bauman explained that the 750 parking spaces mentioned are required by the Town's development procedures. They would like to have fewer parking spaces based upon their concepts of reducing vehicles. Mr. Kanter directed the Board's attention to Page 10, Section K, Energy Resources, of the scoping document. He read the section to the Board and commented that it was addressed, but it was a question of whether the Board wanted it to be more specific. Board Member . Conneman thought it could be more specific. Board Member Riha stated that LEED certification is more than energy, and she recalled that it was discussed under site plan with previous projects. Mr. Bauman explained that LEED certification is an elective process, on their part; they believe it is the way things should be done for the way the economy and the planet is going. Page 5 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Attorney Brock explained that the purpose of the EIS is to focus on potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposal and how they can be mitigated. To the extent that the developer is proposing to get LEED certification, it breaks down into the applicant proposing a series of discrete actions or design elements for the project that cumulatively will lead to certification. She thought that the Board's concern wasn't so much whether the developer attains the certification, but rather what are the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. of the proposal. If the applicant is proposing certain elements he can apply to the LEED certification process, will those particular elements help to mitigate the impacts? Attorney Brock suggested that instead of making the developer go through their paces to show that the project will meet a particular level of LEED certification, the Board should focus on the impacts of the proposed project, what is being built into the project from the beginning that will not create adverse impacts where otherwise you might expect them, and what are they proposing to do with the project to mitigate some of the impacts occurring. She reiterated that the document's purpose was not to be an in -depth informative document on the LEED certification process itself. Chairperson Howe asked Mr. Kanter if he had a comment. Mr. Kanter directed the Board's attention to Board Member Wilcox's question of whether the proposal was a concept or a plan; he understood that by the time the Environmental Impact Statement is complete it will be a plan. The concept has to evolve into a plan in order for the impacts to sufficiently be identified. Otherwise, all the Board has is a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, which would not be sufficient to pursue a zoning change. Chairperson Howe stated that if there are items the Board heard that are not in the scoping document sufficiently, the Board needs to make note of it. He decided that he would state his comments first. Chairperson Howe brought up the issue of assessing the neighborhood commercial component. He knew that the commercial component was included in the scoping document, but liked how the several aspects of the neighborhood commercial component were articulated during the public hearing. Chairperson Howe then stated that he was struggling with the issue of nodal development and what it is. He was a proponent of nodal development and was unsure if the proposal was nodal development or not. It was a broader question that he would be struggling with as they move forward. Chairperson Howe then expressed concern with the timing of the review of the Comprehensive Plan and this development. He noted that both projects needed to run through their process, but wondered how they were going to coincide. Board Member Riha concurred. Chairperson Howe then solicited comments from board members. Board Member Conneman added that community is very important and that Mr. Rancich has recognized that.. He stated that some of the neighbors are present that evening, and Mr. Rancich should look at what.impact the project has on the community as he's filling out the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Rancich responded that he met with Ms. Dutt at her home when she called him to make a presentation to the West Hill Home Page 6 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Owners Association. He spent as much time with them as they were willing to spend with him explaining the project. His door is open to Ms. Dutt and anyone else. Chairperson Howe asked Board Member Conneman if the section on community character was sufficient or if he wanted to add language. Board Member Conneman thought the language was sufficient, and if Mr. Rancich carries out what is said in the section then he has done what he should do in looking at the community. Board Member Bosak stated that traffic has been identified many times as something that needs mitigation. It occurred to him that there are two forms of the position that the applicant seems to be taking with regard to traffic. What he calls the strong form is by providing services at the top of the hill the development could actually reduce the amount of traffic. He knows that it will be addressed, but he has his doubts that it will be true. Board Member Bosak stated that there is another form that is not quite the same thing. He explained that they know that there are "X" number of people who are going to be coming and living on West Hill over the next "Y" years and it can be shown (and was shown in the Route 96 study) that if the two alternatives given this number of people are sure to come are A) let them live wherever they want or B) stack them all in one place then you get a better traffic impact by putting them all in one place. Board Member Bosak was expecting that the applicant was also going to look at traffic that way. All he was saying was when the applicant does look at it that way, Board Member Bosak will want to know where the original premise came from that "X" number of people are sure to be living here within "Y" years. He thought that most of the time the numbers are accepted as inevitable, but it didn't seem to be inevitable given current circumstances. Board Member Bosak went on to say that the removal of agricultural land is an impact that needs to be mitigated. He was curious to know how and would like to see in the study how the applicant intends to mitigate the removal of agricultural land. He was not sure how anyone can do that. Mr. Rancich was not sure they could do that, but he would certainly look at it and have an answer for Board Member Bosak. The answer might be that 90 acres of tillable land are lost. Board Member Riha stated that she is concerned about how the project interfaces with the Comprehensive Plan and the Route 96 corridor management study. She presumed that at some point there would need to be changes in the road system given the number and size of proposed projects. She asked if that would be part of the Town's Comprehensive Plan because one of the mitigation strategies would be to build additional roads and reroute current roads to accommodate a large increase in development on West Hill over the next 10 to 20 years. Board Member Riha wondered if the Town was requiring the Holochuck EIS to include Carrowmoor and is Carrowmoor including Holochuck project. She asked if all projects should include at least several hundred more units because there is likelihood that there will be several more hundred units in the next decade. Page 7 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Mr. Kanter responded that both the Carrowmoor and the Holochuck EIS's will have to consider the additional units on West Hill. Staff met with the applicant and NYS DOT officials discussed the connector road that goes north to Bundy Road and whether that may have to be completed in conjunction with the Carrowmoor development in order to make it work. DOT was leaning heavily in that direction at the time. Mr. Kanter said that the traffic analysis will have to look at whether that connection has to be made in order to make the traffic flow work better in that area. Board Member Riha stated that it might be good to assume a different road system. Mr. Kanter explained that it was built into the scoping document and it will have to be really fleshed out in the traffic analysis. Board Member Riha thought that it would need to be addressed in the Town's Comprehensive Plan because the applicant would have to make assumptions. Mr. Kanter stated that unfortunately the 1993 Comprehensive Plan does not give a lot of information about traffic, which is one reason it was being updated. The development will interact with the plan update and vice versa, but the timing is an off -set. Chairperson Howe thought it was good to hear that there would be a relationship as the comprehensive planning process and the Carrowmoor project move forward. Board Member Erb asked if the Route 96 corridor study suggested a signal light at the Bundy Road /Route 96 intersection. Mr. Kanter replied that it wasn't specifically suggested. Board Member Erb stated that the Board is clearly talking about diverting traffic over to Bundy Road, which will then have to enter on Route 96. Mr. Kanter explained that the Carrowmoor study will have to look at it. Board Member Wilcox added that the Holochuck development will have to look at it as well: Mr. Kanter stated that the Route 96 study suggested creating an entrance area along Route 96 near Bundy Road into the new nodal area at the hospital through such means as a round -about or other landscaping, signage, and other traffic calming measures that could help to slow traffic to realize you are coming into a more heavily developed area. Board Member Riha asked if the scoping document should include a request for an analysis of having several hundred more units and not just assuming present conditions plus Carrowmoor. Mr. Kanter explained that any traffic analysis has to look at background growth, which basically factors in a certain percentage of area -wide growth on top of the development of the proposal being studied. In cases where numbers from specific projects are known, those numbers have to be factored in. It normally does not project out 20 years what is going to happen on West Hill. He noted that even the Comprehensive Plan is not going to be that accurate in that kind of a projection, but it will probably include a build -out analysis on West Hill. The Board then turned their attention to Board Member Erb's concerns. Board Member Erb stated that one speaker spoke of groundwater impact and asked if the concept of groundwater patterns and what the construction project might be anticipated to them to them was covered on Page ,6 of the scoping document, item C4— Describe predevelopment conditions including on -site and off -site watershed mapping. Page 8 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Chairperson Howe noted that Mr. Walker shook his head yes. Board Member Wilcox then asked why the Board thought there was a potential impact on groundwater. Board Member Erb did not know and Board Member Wilcox said that is the reason why it should be studied. Mr. Walker explained that groundwater mapping is more critical when groundwater is being utilized as the primary water supply or is the major use as a groundwater supply. It does not happen on West Hill because it is not reliable. Carrowmoor will be served by public water, and most of the residents in the area are served by public water. Part of what the applicant is doing with surface water catchment and building the ponds may impact groundwater, but groundwater is not a resource being utilized other than how it is related to surface hydrology and the stream flow of the area. Board Member Erb heard Mr. Walker say that groundwater is not a big enough issue to force it into the scoping document. Mr. Walker agreed. Board Member Erb then asked if the proposed Town law permits hotels and bed and breakfasts. Attorney Brock explained that they are permitted and the hotel can only have up to 24 rooms. Board Member Erb followed up by asking if there was any provision for site plan review in the future to reduce the number of required parking. spaces. Mr. Kanter answered that there are specific parking provisions in the proposed local law that are different from the Town's normal parking provisions. Attorney Brock added that the proposed local law does not require as much parking as the Zoning Ordinance. Going back to Board Member Erb's question on hotels and bed and breakfasts, Attorney Brock stated that the square footage of those businesses is included in the maximum 36,000 square feet for commercial uses. Chairperson Howe asked if the draft local law was available on -line. Mr. Kanter responded that the local law currently was not on -line, but he liked the idea of posting it to the Town's website. Board Member Erb returned to the concerns and issues she had, and stated that she has been skimming the scoping document and cannot find the word "dust" as in "construction dust ". She asked if it was addressed. Chairperson Howe did not think that it needed to be found right then, but that they should make note of the issue. Board Member Erb then stated that someone raised the issue of signs on Route 79 and she wanted to mention that signs have already been discussed by the Board. Signs would not be allowed currently under Town law, and it would be addressed during the. Board's site plan review of the project. Board Member Erb asked what would happen if there was full residential occupancy, but not continuous neighborhood market services in the commercial component of the development. She was worried that if small businesses come and go, there might be long periods of time with no corner market. Mr. Rancich explained that the commercial spaces are going to be owned by the condominium association and the condominium association will control the rent charged to individual businesses of Carrowmoor. The spaces will not be for sale, so an outside owner cannot come and raise rents. Board Page 9 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Member Erb thought Mr. Rancich has said in the past that his traffic engineers have experience evaluating similar projects that include imbedded neighborhood commercial development, but the alternative that most worries her is that Carrowmoor residents vote to keep shopping at Wegman's. This results in there not being a corner market to intercept people and keep them off of Hector Street for short trips. Mr. Rancich admitted that he had not thought of that scenario because the flavor of Carrowmoor is to have a small community. The spirit and character of Carrowmoor is based on residents with outside neighbors coming in and establishing a community. He could not say it would never happen, but thought it was highly unlikely. Board Member Erb thought it was an alternative that needed to be clearly addressed so it could be seen in all. of its stark ugliness. Chairperson Howe suggested that the issue could be included when assessing the neighborhood commercial component. He thought it would be hard to address, but it could be put on the table. Board Member Erb noted that there was also an alternatives section and wondered if the Board should ask that the alternatives section include full residential build -out and occupancy without the neighborhood commercial to intercept traffic. Board Member Bosak did not think that that was what alternatives meant in that section. He thought the reason the items were listed was to tell the Board why these courses of action were not taken instead of the one proposed. Chairperson Howe suggested it be added to the section expanding upon the neighborhood commercial component. Mr. Rancich stated that if part of the concern was for the project to go back to purely residential development, then the whole exercise was for naught because he could.put a postage subdivision on the. land. He felt that was not what was needed to be there —more tract housing was not needed. Board Member Erb stated that Mr. Rancich helped her realize that the as of right alternative already covers what she is asking for because it would be sprawl development putting the same number of people in the same general space. Mr. Kanter added that the traffic consultant will have to look at as a baseline what traffic would normally be generated from a 400 unit residential development to then be able to say what traffic would be generated from the proposed project. Board Member Erb stated for the record that there is already built into the document discussion of routes, frequency and duration of construction vehicle traffic. It also includes a general neighborhood livability analysis that considers existing driveway delays and traffic conditions for area residents and how the proposed development relates to it. Board Member Wilcox noted that there was nothing left for him to say other than a few quick comments. He commented that Mr. Meigs talked about commercial impacts and Mr. Meigs raised points Board Member Wilcox had not considered. He thought Mr. Meigs's point of whether commercial space might attract other commercial space to the area and that the point warrants at least a paragraph to acknowledge the point has been thought about. Board Member Wilcox stated that a lot of Ms. Dutt's points would Page 10 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved be addressed during site plan review and that he did not have any other comments because other board members had addressed them. Board Member Bosak followed up on Board. Member Erb's comment regarding the list of alternatives. He thought the list was missing something important —given the assumption that "X" number of units needs to be added to the housing stock, why shouldn't the housing be built in the City. He stated that creating nodal development is good, but increasing urban density was better and thought it should be explicitly added. Attorney Brock explained that the applicant was not required to consider alternatives on land that they do not own or have access to. Board Member Bosak responded fair enough, but it was going to remain a central question for him. Mr. Walker thought it was a more appropriate question for the Town's Comprehensive Plan than an environmental impact statement. If the Town is going to be developed with nodal development that allows for certain types of land uses, the alternative is not using the land for that —then what is the alternative. to provide those resources? Mr. Kanter. agreed it was a Comprehensive Plan question, but thought if it was asked about every remaining undeveloped area of the Town it would be counter to where the Comprehensive Plan was going. He gave the example of the Route 96 corridor; it is going to be a growth corridor, but was more of a question of how the growth was going to occur. Board Member Bosak asked if that was circular and he commented that he did not know that the Comprehensive Plan had already been revised. Mr. Kanter stated he was saying where the Comprehensive Plan was going to be going —he could state as a fact that the Comprehensive Plan was not going to say that everything should be in the City. Board Member Bosak asked .if the Board should be basing decisions'on Mr. Kanter's assessment of what the Comprehensive Plan will look like. Mr. Kanter responded that the Board should be basing its decision on where is the best place in the Town for growth to occur; not that growth isn't going to occur in the Town. Attorney Brock interjected that the Board should be looking at the proposed action and what are the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the action and can they be mitigated acceptably. Board Member Riha thought that was why the Comprehensive Plan was important; it did seem that there was going to be growth on West Hill, but she is concerned whether the roads can handle the traffic. Attorney Brock read from the SEAR regulations a list of types of alternative actions that can be looked at during the EIS process. Board Member Bosak stated he understood, but a person who spoke earlier made the assertion that in fact what the Board was considering was contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and referred to it as illegal. He asked if the Board was supposed to be judging the project according to the law they have or the law they are going to have. Chairperson Howe stated that the Comprehensive Plan is not law —it is a guide. Attorney Brock explained that zoning is supposed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning is in the province of the Town Board and if the Town Board revises the zoning to accommodate the types of actions that are being proposed, it is not the Planning Board's purview to then say it does not think the Town Board's zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is Page 11 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 , Approved the job of the Town Board, and the Planning Board does not have the ability or the authority to state that it thinks what the Town Board did was illegal. Board Member Bosak understood that Attorney Brock was saying that the Planning Board was not supposed to be interpreting it in light of the Comprehensive Plan, but rather in the context of the law that the Planning Board is assuming will be passed to create the zone. Attorney Brock thought that the Planning Board needed to focus on the environmental impacts and let the Town Board sort out its decision as a result of the EIS process. The Town Board may decide that the law needs to be revised in some way as a result of the environmental review. She reiterated that the Planning Board needed to focus on the impacts of the project. Attorney Brock thought that the scoping document should talk about the consistency of the project with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Howe then asked if there were other Board comments. Board Member Erb asked how far out they were asking the applicant to go for neighborhood livability analysis. Mr. Kanter thought language could be added to the neighborhood livability section by adding specific references to the neighborhoods mentioned during public comments. He suggested the language, "include an analysis of cut - through traffic and its impacts on the following neighborhoods including Campbell Avenue to Brookfield to Route 96; Warren Place to Richard Place, Sunrise, Cliff Park Road, Hook Place, Taylor Place to Elm Street; and Westhaven Road to Elm Street to Coy Glen Road." He did not think traffic counts needed to be done at every intersection because once they get the traffic flow at the beginning. intersections then the livability analysis can look at the other safety and speeding and other issues on livability. Board Member Erb discussed the intersections listed in the scoping document with staff. Chairperson Howe asked if there was anyone who wanted to address the Board before he closed the public hearing. A young woman came before the Board and thought that there was a misunderstanding regarding groundwater impact. She stated that the Board had the idea that whoever mentioned it was asking about its impact as a resource, but she thought the speaker meant groundwater's impact as a product and what groundwater would be created from Carrowmoor. Chairperson Howe thought it was okay and that it had been covered in the scoping document. The young woman then asked Mr. Rancich if he knew when the traffic engineer review would be complete. Marie Harkins came before the Board and wondered what kinds of standards the residents would be held to. She noted that electric cars were being proposed, but would residents sign an agreement to hold on to their electric cars or will the cars be sold for SUVs. Ms. Harkins asked if residents would have to sign an agreement that they would use the shuttle bus to go to Wegman's. She wanted the EIS to look at what Page 12 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved happens if the residents don't follow through on the usage of electric cars and the shuttle bus. With no one else interested in addressing the Board, Chairperson Howe closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. He then gave Mary Russell, attorney for applicant, an opportunity to address the Board. Mary Russell came before the Board to respond to the comment of the project being contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. She explained that in the 1993 Comprehensive Plan there is a goal of encouraging nodal development in the Town. When the Plan was implemented in the Zoning Ordinance, the Town looked to the Special Land Use District form of zoning to enable nodal development to take place. She went to say that the Town Board had structured a Special Land Use District to accommodate specific nodal development such as Carrowmoor. Chairperson Howe stated that the Board did not need to identify language to go into the scoping document that evening; the minutes would capture items indentified that need to be included. He thought that the Board would also receive additional material to look at during the next meeting. Mr. Kanter added that the next meeting would be an opportunity for the Board to get its thinking straight on what it wants to do to revise it. He did not think that a revised document would be ready for that meeting. Chairperson Howe thanked everyone for their comments and noted the Board would be working on it over the next couple of meetings. Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Rancich how long it would take him to come back with a draft EIS. Mr. Rancich thought it would take about a year to complete. AGENDA ITEM Distribution of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final S /EIS) for the Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Plan as part of the Athletics and Events Center project, located off Coddington Road near Rich Road, W. Northview Road, and the Water Tank Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1- 9.2 and 43 -1 -4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of approximately 4.5 acres of wetland in two locations on the Ithaca College lands to compensate for approximately 2.77 acres of wetland being lost as part of the Athletics and Events Center project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice- President of Facilities, Agent. Chairperson Howe announced that the Board had received the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Athletic and Events Center. Rick Couture and Michelle Palmer came before the Board to provide an update on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Palmer stated that the document was submitted to the Town that day and it contains the draft FSEIS and Page 13 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved additional information. She noted that there was one change to a quantity; in further study they found that there would be 2 acres of wetland that would be existing wetland that would be included in the easement instead of 3. A map is also included that shows the easement boundaries around the wetlands that have been discussed with the Finger Lakes Land Trust as well as both areas of the wetland mitigation. The Board was also given a memo from the Finger Lakes Land Trust regarding a proposed memorandum of understanding between the Land Trust and the College and maybe the Town. Ms. Palmer wanted to incorporate the additional comments that came in on February 13th into the document and then resubmit to the Town in the next few days. Mr. Kanter stated that the question was raised at the last Planning Board meeting as to whether the Board would require a Final Supplement EIS and then go to a Findings Statement as opposed to making negative declaration based upon the Supplemental EIS. He thought that Ithaca College determined that it would be better to put it into the form of a Final SEIS and go with the more standard procedure in SEQR of going back to the Final Findings Statement. The Board discussed comments made in the letter from Nick Schipanski. They then discussed the format in which the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement would be received. It was decided that Ithaca College would provide supplemental pages to the Final Supplemental. Environmental Impact Statement the Board had received that evening. With no further discussion, Chairperson Howe thanked Ithaca College. AGENDA ITEM Presentation and discussion regarding the 2008 Planning Department Annual Report.. Mr. Kanter presented the Planning Department's 2008 annual report to the Planning Board. He then highlighted various aspects of the report to the Board. A copy of the report is attached to the Town Board minutes of February 9, 2009. The Board briefly discussed the proposed Verizon cell tower in the Town of Dryden, actions taken by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Ferguson conservation easement and Cornell's T -GETS (Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement). AGENDA ITEM Other Business Board Member Bosak asked if towns have the ability to regulate gas drilling. Board Member Riha stated that towns do not regulate gas drilling, and it is exempt from all stormwater pollution regulations. Page 14 of 15 Planning Board Minutes February 17, 2009 Approved Chairperson Howe mentioned he received a copy of the letter Bruce Bates sent Cornell regarding compliance of construction material on Pine Tree Road. Mr. Bates explained that Cornell has not applied for a use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the letter notifies them of the violation and requests that Cornell come into compliance. Mr. Kanter reviewed the agenda for the March 3rd Planning Board meeting. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes: February 3, 2009 No discussion. Board Member Wilcox moved and Board Member Erb seconded approval of the minutes with corrections submitted by Board Member Bosak and Board Member Erb. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009— 013: Adopt Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on February 3, 2009, Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meetings on February 3, 2009. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Wilcox, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Erb. NA YS: None The motion declared to be carried unanimously. Adjournment Upon motion by Board Member Riha, ,Chairperson Howe adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, PL ���� Carrie Coa �f' Whitmore First Deputy Town Clerk Page 1.5 of 15 PLANNING BOARD 02 /17/2009 ATTACHMENT #1 112 Valley View Road Ithaca, NY 14850 January 22, 2009 Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 JKanter@town.ithaca.ny.us Dear Mr. Kanter, S in AN w o�� TOtri N 0i =1 11ACA PLANNING / ENG"'r -RING We are long time West Hill residents, and have lived in our current house on Valley View Road in the Town for the past 14 years. We are writing to you to express our concern about the proposed Carrowmoor development on Mecklenburg Road. I, Lew Durland, am a licensed Professional Engineer and LEED° Accredited Professional, and I have made my 28 year career in energy conservation, renewable energy and green design. When I fast heard of the Carrowmoor project, I was excited with the prospect of expanding Ithaca's vibrant sustainable community. The developer's proposal to build a green community with renewable energy is laudable. I am also encouraged by their plan to pursue a LEED® Platinum rating from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). Where development and renovation are planned, we should strongly encourage it to be done sustainably. However, as I learn more about Carrowmoor, I have more reservations about the project and I am greatly concerned about its potential negative impact on the community. My first concern has to do with its enormous scale and rural location. Their proposed project — 400 units,pf housing, a hotel, bed and breakfast, and retail space — all located far from the center of the City of Ithaca - is a city unto itself. Is it the intent of the Town to create another center of the community? The proposed development in a rural location would remove over one hundred acres of agricultural land and over ten acres of forested land. It's not really green when you carve out your own private oasis from previously undeveloped land. This proposed large development would put an enormous strain on our existing infrastructure. The traffic increase is likely to be very significant. At the January 6, 2009, Planning Board meeting, the developer said that he thought this development might decrease traffic - -at least at certain times. Anyone who lives on West Hill knows that decreasing traffic on Saturday morning is insignificant. The real bottlenecks occur on weekday mornings and evenings. Carrowmoor will undoubtedly increase traffic during those times. As traffic is backed up along Hector Street, mote people will travel down Westhaven, Elm Street, and Coy Glen. Increased volume and speed are already making Jonathan Kanter January 22, 2009 those streets dangerous, at times, for us when we walk our dog, as it is for others. Carrowmoor is likely to make it worse. Part of the renewable energy for this proposed development is contingent upon the developer's proposed wind farm. What happens if the wind farm does not get approved? It would be far "greener" to use the wind farm to provide renewable energy to our existing needs, rather than in such a self - serving manner, creating a new energy demand where there is no such demand at the moment. How committed to a green development is the developer? He said that the development would attempt to achieve a US Green Building Council LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Platinum rating. Yet, at the January 6, 2009 Planning Board Meeting, no one from his team (the developer, his designer, nor his attorney) knew whether or not the U.S Green Building Council was a federal agency. The U.S. Green Building Council is a non - profit organization, and the LEED° rating system is a third - party certification program. The developer and his team should know all of this by now, especially if, as they claim, they are attempting to achieve USGBC's highest green building rating. In these economic times, as people are losing their houses and businesses are closing, is it wise to allow our zoning to be changed for a new city on the hill? The developer's proposal is very likely to degrade the quality of life for those of us on West Hill. Please do not let this developer's proposed "idyllic" community be a nightmare for the rest of the neighborhood. We strongly urge you to move very cautiously with this proposed project, and consider stopping it or scaling it way back. Sincerely, Lewis H. Durland and Christine M. Jolluck Page 2 PLANNING BOARD 02/17/2009 ATTAL;AM1V4 l' fit G 135 Westhaven Rd Ithaca NY 14850 pduttster@gmail.com February 15, 2009 Subject: Carrowmoor Scoping Meeting, February 17 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion on the Carrowmoor Project. This is the first meeting of this kind that I have been to, and please excuse me if the questions I have are more appropriate for another form. With respect to the full Environmental Assessment form, Part 1: • Pg 3 states that the depth of the water table is 6 to 30 feet, because building foundations extend below the 6 -foot depth, I am asking for a full review by the U.S.G.S. on the impact of groundwater on the site and groundwater and any aquifers down gradient, to Cayuga Lake. • Pg. 3 without a survey, how do you know that the site is not located over an aquifer? • Pg. 3: you have checked that hunting or fishing occurs, I'm assuming deer hunting, I want to know what impact the loss of this habitat will have on the deer population, if the density of deer will increase in the surrounding neighborhoods, and what impact this will have: we already have a very serious deer problem here • Pg. 4 agree that Carrowmoor needs to consult with DEC and Fish and Wildlife concerning plant or animal species that is threatened or endangered, and I would like to see that document. • Pg. 5: statement 17: the site is served by existing public utilities? No improvements are necessary to allow connection? • Pg. 5: statement 18: noted, not verified, concerning site in Agricultural lands • Pg. 5 number of off - street parking spaces is 750 +. What does the plus mean? What about parking along the streets there? Could that number be up to 1000? How does anyone know where are those cars are going? Is Carrowmoor is self - sustaining —with all their retail and trails and van service, why do they need so many parking spaces? They're not going to contribute to the cross -town traffic, are they? • Pg. 5, ques. 3 at the bottom, Will disturbed areas be reclaimed, and you've indicate Yes and NA; how can agricultural areas be reclaimed for mixed -use residential open space -Ag- Recreational? Pg. 6: this project could go on for 9 years. That's a long time for people who live nearby to tolerate the noise, pollution and traffic of construction. What sort of traffic will be generated over those 9 years? I imagine very heavy concrete trucks that not only clog the streets but severely damage them. As a tax payer, I want to be compensated for this damage. Already you can go to Wal -Mart which hasn't been around long, and see that the roads have not held up. • P6. You mention creating jobs. What kind of jobs? Will the workers be paid a Living Wage? Will they make enough money to live at Carrowmoor —a mixed income establishment —or will they merely service Carrowmoor? • P. 7: q. 17: the project will not involve the disposal of solid waste? (checked NO) P. 7 q. 21: Project will use solar, wind, micro- hdyro, geothermal (ground- return heat pump or cooling igneous body beneath the land)? Did not see any plans for this on the website. How much solar? Solar panels on every rooftop? An array of solar panels in the open field? What is micro- hydro? I never heard of it. How much energy does it generate? What if the wind farm is not approved? Then, will you still be a carbon neutral community? Carrowmoor will produce as much energy as it consumes? Will these sustainable, zero carbon condos be air - conditioned? I see no large trees on the land that could shade the houses. P7. 23. No number given for anticipated water usage. We on West Haven have had water pressure issues, and that needs to be investigated. P. 8: zoning: subdivision checked, which means Carrowmoor although it presents itself as a sustainable neighborhood is in actuality, contributing to sprawl. People who own half - million dollar condos are not about to take the bus into Wegmans or Cornell. P. 9: q. 5: statement of "400 residences with 40 median income units" —what do you mean by median income? What about condo fees? How much will those be? What kind of income would you need to live there? AND >... exactly how many buildings are we talking about 400 condos, 32 elderly residences, 36,000 of commercial. That's a huge footprint for this area, in fact, it's way out of proportion, and it will radically, irrevocably change the West Hill. P9. q 6: stated to be "Nodal Development with full economic cross - sections economics" Is this the place for a Nodal Development? At the top of a hill where you have all these tributaries feeding into one narrow and residential road, Hector Str.? And what does "full economic cross section economics" mean? A mixed income neighborhood? Using John's numbers from a March 2008 meeting, and V I'm sure the numbers have gone up, the average price for a unit is 400,000. This does not include condo fees. The majority of people in Tompkins County could not afford to live in this neighborhood; therefore you end up creating, in the words of a friend of mine, an "oasis for the rich." • P9. q.6: nothing stated for traffic mitigation • P.9. `Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining /surrounding land uses within a' /a mile —no it's not: high density residences, enough roads to support 750+ cars • P. 10 12a: our assertion is that the existing network is NOT adequate to handle additional traffic. As the traffic study is being completed, we want to be involved. We want not only Hector Street assessed, but also the intersection of 79 and West Haven, West Haven and Elm, and the dangerous intersection of Elm, Floral Ave, Hector Street and State Street. We want to make sure that the cumulative impact of all the new developments: the new Linderman apts., EcoVillage, and Holochuck are thoroughly evaluated and with input from the residents. Hector Street is a narrow, twisty street, especially dangerous 5 -6 months of the year during the winter. We are already at the breaking point in the morning and at after work with the buildup of traffic at the Octopus and on route 13. From 4 to 6 on rt 13, you sit in a traffic jam, cars idling and producing carbon dioxide. A development that is sustainable would not add to this mix. If the community is walkable, and the residents ,plan on spending most of their time there, why is the developer asking for 750+ parking spaces? Part 2: • p. l Construction of paved parking areas for 1000 or more vehicles, check box unless 750 is a firm number • p.2: after q 3, add Other impacts: Drainage to Cayuga Lake and surrounding creeks • p3: Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater: if foundations are deeper than 6 feet, there will be an adverse effect on gw, if only to increase TDS (total dissolved solids) • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water: check: all creeks downgradient deserve evaluation • P. 3 near bottom: is it true that 430+ buildings won't require expansion of existing waste treatment and /or storage facilities? • P. 4: add other impacts: Dust generation during construction due to vegetation removal and construction actives. • P4. Impact on plants and animals: has this been investigated, - -won't affect any threatened or endangered species? Is that true? Otherwise, check. Removal of a portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat? What about bird habitat? Migrating geese? What about the deer? Deer are a huge issue on the West Hill. 3 • P. 5 Impact on Ag land resources: I want it to be noted that 95 acres of land that was protected as agricultural land, is being removed forever from agricultural usage. • P.5 I want to know what the impact will be on the Community garden. • irreversibly changed • p. 6. Impact to an archaeological site: I would be interested in seeing the information on this • p. 6 q 13: Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? Check yes. As a biker, a vista of stone castles would completely ruin this route. A stop light would shatter the area's peace. • P.7 top: A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Check Yes. This is a beautiful vista that one sees as traveling into Ithaca and it would be obliterated by the presence of the 430 buildings. • P. 8: check: a major reduction of an open space important to the community. Yes, this is an important biking route. In addition, we NEED open spaces: this is what gives the West Hill its rural atmosphere. This development will impact severely on viewsheds, and to evaluate this impact, I am requesting that a helium balloon study be undertaken: helium_ balloons are stationed where the 430+ buildings would be, and at the height that they would be at, and at least this would give the city and the town an appreciation of what the are getting themselves into.. I • P9. Q 16. who pays for the extension and maintenance of energy transmission lines? • Q. 17 noise was checked. How do you propose to compensate apt. owners and home owners for the 9 years of noise related to construction? There were 3 houses built down the road from where I live, and the noise was disruptive; I can't image what the noise level would be like for 30 buildings, let alone 430., • P. 10 impact on growth and character of neighborhood. The plan is to add 900 residents in an area of maybe 2,000 to 3,000? The neighborhoods that we know will cease to exist. • Check: Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. Officially, these 95 acres was meant for agricultural purposes; the zoning was supposed to protect this land. I don't understand when or how the zoning was changed, but whoever changed it, was not protecting the neighborhoods on the West Hill. In addition, Ithaca is a sustainable community: putting 750+ new cars on the road only contributes to the sprawl and neighborhood car mentality. More cars will make the already dangerous roads more dangerous to walkers and bikers, those who try to live a sustainable lifestyle I l' Continuation: That area was never zoned for 36,000 square feet of commercial development: this area was never intended for retail by those who wrote the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and retail should not be allowed there now; furthermore, the only way to make retail work here would be to draw those from downtown and the East and South Hills, which would increase traffic. Furthermore, neither were the Great Hall or recreational facilities envisioned here, which again, will encourage more traffic up the West Hill. In summary, although I support efforts toward sustainability - -dense housing, walking, biking, use of alternative energies, I see Carrowmoor as actually contributing to sprawl. These 750+ vehicles still have to get down the hill unless these residents are content to restrict themselves to Carrowmoor. These vehicles have one main tributary in which to flow, and this is a twisty, steep tributary that is very dangerous in winter, which we have about 5 months of the year. I am not convinced that alternative energies will supply a major part of the development's energy: I see no numbers on this on the Carrowmoor website, nor have I heard of any discussed during the meetings I've attended. The addition of 36,000 feet of retail is contrary to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and may be illegal. Furthermore, having a Great Hall for celebrations such as weddings and a large recreation center will encourage traffic up the hill. More traffic woes. - Finally, Carrowmoor has not addressed the need for housing in this community— which there is. Carrowmoor was marketed to wealthy Cornell alumni, not the individual who commutes daily from Enfield because he can't find affordable housing in Ithaca. Affordable housing is in the range of $120,000 to $200,000; Carrowmoor's median price, that's a 1,600 sq ft unit, is $400,000. Very few people living on the West Hill could afford such a place. Sincerely, Ms. Pat Dutt S Page 1 of 1 Jonathan Kanter From: Joan Lawrence olaw75 @peoplepc.com] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:45 PM To: jkanter @town.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Carromoor Development To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: Joan Lawrence, 325 Warren Place, Ithaca Re: Carromoor Development Date: February 17, 2009 I am concerned about new and heavier traffic on Warren Place, Cliff Park Rd, Taylor Place, and lower Sunrise Road. This is the "short -cut" through the neighborhood that drivers already take - especially in the morning - that brings them out at the armory on Sunrise where they are let out into backed up traffic by accomodating drivers coming down Hector St. Since none of these streets have sidewalks and some are very steep, this can be a real hazard for school kids, walkers, and our neighbors. Several years ago, the city bus skidded across Hector St. and into the bedroom of the house across the street because it was unable to stop at the corner of Sunrise Rd. Luckily, the people had just left the room. It would make sense if these streets and possibly Hook Place with its 10% grade were included in the scoping, especially since most of these streets already need repair and additional traffic would make the road surface significantly worse. It is doubtful that the City has the resources to repave all these streets because of Carromoor's additional traffic. Since Warren Place is a wide, mostly straight street, drivers tend to speed through the neighborhood, and some of them respond to a signal to slow down by giving the finger and deliberately speeding up. This disregard is totally unacceptable to this neighborhood and our streets need to be included in the scoping document. Joan Lawrence 2/17/2009 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 17, 2009 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION: The purpose of the Public Scoping Session is to consider public comments on the Draft Scoping Document (dated December 30, 2008, Revised January 12, 2009, Further Revised January 28, 2009) regarding the scope and content for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared for the proposed Carrowmoor Development, located off of NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) north of Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves the development of 400 +/- residential condominium units, a community center complex, up to 36,000 square feet of neighborhood oriented commercial uses, up to 32 living units in a residential building for the elderly, a child care center, and other mixed -use development on 158 +/- acres. The project will also include multiple new roads and walkways, open recreation areas, stormwater facilities, and community gardens. John Rancich, Owner; Steve Bauman, Agent; Mary Russell, Attorney. The proposed actions, including site plan and subdivision approval by the Planning Board and rezoning to a Planned Development Zone by the Town Board, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review. Copies of the Draft Scoping Document are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 (call 607 - 273 - 1747), or on the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us. Distribution of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final S/EIS) for the Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Plan as part of the Athletics and Events Center project, located off Coddington Road near Rich Road, W. Northview Road, and the Water Tank Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -9.2 and 43 -1 -4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of approximately 4.5 acres of wetland in two locations on the Ithaca College lands to compensate for approximately 2.77 acres of wetland being lost as part of the Athletics and Events Center project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, Agent. 4. Presentation and discussion regarding the 2008 Planning Department Annual Report. Approval of Minutes: February 3, 2009. 6. Other Business: 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 SCOPING SESSION Tuesday, February 17, 2009 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Scoping Session, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, also known as the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, and Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, at the following time and on the following matter: 7:05pm The purpose of the Public Scoping Session is to consider public comments on the Draft Scoping Document (dated December 30, 2008, Revised January 12, 2009, . Further Revised January 28, 2009) regarding the scope and content for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be prepared for the proposed Carrowmoor Development, located off of NYS Route 79 (Mecklenburg Road) north of Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves the development of 400 +/- residential condominium units, a community center complex, up to 36,000 square feet of neighborhood oriented commercial uses, up to 32 living units in a residential building for the elderly, a child care center, and other mixed -use development on 158 +/- acres. The project will also include multiple new roads and walkways, open recreation areas, stormwater facilities, and community gardens. John Rancich, Owner; Steve Bauman, Agent; Mary Russell, Attorney. The proposed actions, including site plan and subdivision approval by the Planning Board and rezoning to a Planned Development Zone by the Town Board, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review. Copies of the Draft Scoping Document are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 (call 607- 273 - 1747), or on the Town's website at www.town.ithaca.ny.us. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons who are interested in commenting on this matter. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public scoping session. Written comments on the Draft Scoping Document will also be accepted through 4:OOpm on February 27, 2009 at Town Hall at the address indicated above. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: January 28, 2009 Publish: February 2, 2009 Monday, February 2, 2009 THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN OF IT HACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING SESSION Tuesday,` I .. February" 17; §009 By direction of; tfie. Chair- ppeerson of tfie:<.PI pnningg. ewrd NOTICE IS, HERE - BY GIVEN.'that a; Public. i 1 Scopmg Session pursuant I I'to 6 NYCRR .Part 617, also i known as the New York State Environmental Quali ; y Review Act; and Tgwn 1of Ithaca Code' Chapter :148,' .Environmental :.Quoli- lty, Revietiv; will be held by +the Planning Board. of the --------- .-- . -_.__ _.__ (Town of Ithaca -on Tues- open recreation areas, 4 February . 17, I stormwater. facilities, and i 009, at 215 North Tioo- I community gardens. John ga Sheet, 'Ithaca; . NY at RanciSh,. or the following fime;and:on' Bauman, Agent; Mary Rus- sell, Attorney. The pro= 7:05pm The Purpose posed '- actions, including of the Public Scopmg..Ses- ! site Ian and subdivision sion is to considpr. public .approval by the . Planning, com the ments on . Draft gourd and rezoning ,to a Scoping Document' (dated Planned:,: Development Decein er 30, ;20,0 , .Re j Zone by the Town Board, vised January 12 ;" 2009; are Type I actions pursuant Further Revised January i to the State Environmental 28,..2009 regarding the Quality : - Review Act, 6 scope an. content for the NYCRR . Part'. 6-17; and Draft Environmentph lmpdM Chapter. 148 of the Town I Statement IIEIS). that wi0 be; of Ithaca Code reeggording I prepared (for the proposed Environmental Quality Re I Carrowmoor'Development, . v1 ew. located off of NYS Route. Copies of : the Draft 79 (Mecklenburgy' Road) ScoPmgg�� Document are north of Roche available at the Town of i Way, Town of Alta Taz { Ithaca Town.. '•Hall; 215 Parcel No: 27.1. 1'4:2; Ag- I North Tioga Street, Ithaca, ricultural . and -Medium y NY 14850 (call 607-273- Density, Residential Zones. 1747)' 'or on the Town's The proposal inyolVes. the website at development of 400 +/- �www.town.ithoca.ny.us. .residential condominium units, a, community center I Said Planning Board will complex, up to;,. '36000 at said'' time and said square, feet of neig�ibor place hear all persons.! :hood oriented co- mmercial who are interested in com- uses' up to 32 Ii in units. menting on this matter. in a residental building fors Persons may appear. by the: elderly, •a child'; care agent or in person. Indi center, and other'; rnized viduals .with visual use development on i58 I impgirmgnis hearing + (s- acres. The pr. e neill impairments or other spa-. a so include .multiplle new, cial. "needs,_ will be provid- roads and walkways, ed with assistance as nec- essary, upon request. Per- sons desiring, assistance must make such a request hot less than 48 hours pri- or to the time of the public scoping '. session. Written comments on . the Draft Scoping Document-will, al- so be . accepted through 4:00 in on February 27, 2009 -at Town Hall of the address indicated above. Jonathan Kanter, AICP' Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: January 28, 2009 Publish: February 2, 2009 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Sign-in Sheet Date: February 17,, 2009 Please provide your contact information if you would like to be added to our e -mail list to receive Planning Board Agendas In advance of meetings. Print Name e-mail ebkl, u &r) �� [��iN'4 S SU J'1 ilV�i�\ `r1 v{�� �� - t'�- C, 4CtA to 14 kvks q, C-C)CI,- 60 Le ,j ii m4 �Acknee_ @ ebkl, 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 bathe Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday February 17 2009 commencing, at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag_Street. Date of Posting: January 28, 2009 Date of Publication: February 2, 2009 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2 "d day of February 2009. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 �E a