Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-03-03FILE � �� �'�/ REGULAR MEETING DATc —' TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK Board Members Present Rod Howe, Chairperson; Fred Wilcox, George Conneman, Hollis Erb, Susan Riha, Jon Bosak, 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; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk. Others Bruce Rich, Anna Smith, Rick Couture, Andrew Rappaport, Tom Hoard, David Herrick, Steve and Sue Hilbert, Joel Harlan, Steve Bauman, Gail Fink, Brent Katzmann, Gilbert Gillespie, Ken Walkings, Don Crittenden, J. Lusk, A. Baker, K. Porpanco, Ken Colby, Rick Andry, Cathy Cook. Call to Order Chairperson Howe declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m., and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 23, 2009 and February 25, 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 25, 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 No one. AGENDA ITEM SEOR Determination: Alden / Baer 3 -Lot Subdivision, 247 Dubois Road Chairperson Howe read the agenda item and public hearing notice. He then invited the applicant to address the Board. The applicants stated they did not have additional information or statements for the Board. Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Chairperson Howe solicited questions regarding SEQR. Hearing none, he asked if someone wanted to move the proposed resolution. Board Member Talty moved and Board Member Erb seconded the proposed resolution. There being no questions or comments, Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -014: SEQR. Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Alden /Baer 3 -Lot Subdivision, 247 Dubois Road, Tax Parcel No 22 -2- 1.31 MOVED by Kevin Talty, SECONDED by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -2 -1.31, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off from the existing +/- 5.8 acre parcel into three new lots, with Lot A being +/- 0.689 acres, Lot B being +/- 0.534 acres, and Lot C, containing the existing house, being +/- 4.59 acres. Barbara Alden Guttridge & Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on March 3, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Lands of Barbara Alden Guttridge and Ellen Baer, 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, Proposed Lot Split" prepared by Stockwin Surveying, survey date 10130108, and other application materials, and 4. Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance 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 resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. Page 2 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3- lot subdivision located at 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -2- 1.31, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 6.0 acre parcel into three new lots, with Lot A being +/- 0.782 acres, Lot B being +/- 0.603 acres, and Lot C being +/- 4.615 acres and contains the existing house. Barbara Alden Guttridge & Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants Chairperson Howe opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. He then asked the board if they had any questions or comments. Board Member Wilcox stated that he liked the proposal and found it intriguing. He would be happier if there were deed restrictions on Lot C preventing it from further subdivision. Board Member Wilcox expressed concern over the size of Lot B and wondered if it was sufficient to build on and comply with zoning requirements. Board Member Erb seconded the concerns expressed by Board Member Wilcox. She suggested the Board include a condition that Lot C not be subdivided further; she also wanted to include restrictions on building height. Board Member Talty concurred. Board Member Riha thought that the proposal was really pushing it to get Lots A and B. It seemed that issues could be avoided if the proposal only consisted of Lots A and C. She added that the owners knew the zoning restrictions of the parcel when they bought it and knew it would be difficult to subdivide it into two lots. Board Member Riha supported a 2 -lot subdivision or adding deed restrictions to prohibit further subdivision of Lot C. Board Member Bosak supported the proposal and thought it was a creative approach. He hoped the Board would see similar proposals in the future as a way to use agriculture property in the Town. Board Member Bosak thought the proposal was in- keeping with the neighborhood. He supported restricting further subdivision of the property. Board Member Conneman was concerned about further subdivision of Lot C, but was comfortable with deed restrictions. Chairperson Howe supported the proposal, but was a little concerned with the size of Lot B. Chairperson Howe then invited the public to address the Board. Bruce Rich came before the Board and read from a prepared statement. See Attachment #1. Mr. Rich noted that he received notification of the meeting Friday; due to short notice, his neighbors weren't able to attend the meeting but provided him with Page 3 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved their written comments. Mr. Rich read statements from Nick Sturgeon (see Attachment #2); Virginia Freeman (see Attachment #3); and Anna Stalter (see Attachment #4). Anna Smith came before the Board and read a prepared statement from her neighbor, Nina Kethevan (see Attachment #5). Ms. Smith then read her statement to the Board (see Attachment #6). A male neighbor came before the Board and spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that he hated to see more homes be built on the road, but the character of the road has changed dramatically over the past 20 years and it is no longer what it used to be. Chairperson Howe asked if anyone else wished to address the Board; there being no one he closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chairperson Howe then asked about notification requirements and Ms. Ritter explained that agendas are mailed to neighbors the Thursday before the meeting; a legal ad appears in the Ithaca Journal the Wednesday before the meeting; the Town also requests applicants to place a sign on the property one week prior to the meeting. Chairperson Howe noted that there were some discrepancies of the square footage of the created lots. Board Member Riha stated that the discrepancy is explained in Ms. Ritter's memo to the Board. The Board then discussed the possible number of lots that could be created from the property based upon LDR requirements. Board Member Riha asked if there was a problem with water supply in the area; she was confused about a comment referencing water issues in the area. Mr. Walker responded that there is public water in the area, but there are drainage issues. Board Member Bosak expressed confusion over comments made; on the one hand neighbors support agriculture and rural nature of the property, but on the other hand they do not want to see agriculture and rural uses of the property. Mr. Rich explained that his comment was what would prevent the applicants from having cows, sheep and animals on the property? He did not think that there was enough room on the property to dispose of manure. Mr. Kanter explained that a farm is permitted on as little as 3 acres. He also stated that farming uses are permitted in LDR zoning. Board Member Wilcox remarked that comments were made about the proposal being a cluster subdivision and stated the proposal was not a cluster subdivision. Referencing a comment about variances, he explained that if the Board grants subdivision approval, the Zoning Board would review the request for variances. Board Member Wilcox was also bothered by the statements, "I have my lot; I got my subdivision; I don't want you to have yours because you have the open space that I look at." He said the Board hears those comments often and it is frustrating to hear. Page 4 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Board Member Erb thought it was sad that the applicants didn't take it upon themselves to inform their neighbors of the proposal ahead of time. Chairperson Howe asked the applicants if they were comfortable with a restriction on further subdividing Lot C. An applicant responded that one of the proposed deed restrictions is on the height of house, were one to be built on the property. She added that they do not want Lot C further subdivided and supported making it a deed restriction. With no further discussion, Board Member Erb moved and Board Member Bosak seconded the proposed resolution. The Board briefly discussed restricting the height of a building on Lot C, but determined that it was sufficiently governed by the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Brock read proposed changes to the Board regarding deed restrictions on Lot C prohibiting its further subdivision. Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-015: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Alden /Baer 3 -Lot Subdivision, 247 Dubois Road, Tax Parcel No. 22 -2 -1.31 MOVED by Hollis Erb, SECONDED by Jon Bosak. WHEREAS: This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -2 -1.31, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off from the existing +/- 5.8 acre parcel into three new lots, with Lot A being +/- 0.689 acres, Lot B being +/- 0.534 acres, and Lot C, containing the existing house, being +/- 4.59 acres. Barbara Alden Guttridge & Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on March 3, 2009, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on March 3, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Lands of Barbara Alden Guttridge and Ellen Baer, 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca, Page 5 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Tompkins County, New York State, Proposed Lot Split" prepared by Stockwin Surveying, survey date 10130108, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 247 Dubois Road as shown on the survey maps entitled "Lands of Barbara Alden Guttridge and Ellen Baer, 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State, Proposed Lot Split" prepared by Stockwin Surveying, survey date 10130108, subject to the following conditions: a. granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and b. submission of the easement and maintenance agreement for the shared driveway, for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town, prior to the signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and submission to the Planning Department of the County Clerk's filing receipt for said agreement, and C. submission of a revised subdivision plat to more accurately reflect the setback requirements and the resulting allowable building envelope, subject to approval by the Director of Code Enforcement, prior to signing of the plat, and d. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and e. submission of a deed restriction prohibiting any further subdivision of Lot C, for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town, prior to the signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and submission to the Planning Department of the County Clerk's filing receipt for the approved deed restriction. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Page 6 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: Talty. Motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault, 953 Danby Road And PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault project located on the Ithaca College campus at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a primarily subterranean electrical transformer vault which will extend approximately two feet above the finished grade. The vault will have a heavy -duty galvanized grate on top and three benches will be inset into the south wall of the vault. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Andrew J. Rappaport, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent. Board Member Erb started discussion by saying she liked the addition of the benches to the project. Chairperson Howe opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Board Member Wilcox then asked staff why the project was before the Board. Mr. Smith explained that it exceeded the cost threshold. Chairperson Howe asked for a motion on the SEAR resolution. Board Member Riha moved and Board Member Conneman seconded the proposed resolution. Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -016: SEOR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit, Ithaca College Dillingham Center – Electric Vault, Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1- 30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4 MOVED by Susan Riha, SECONDED by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault project located on the Ithaca College campus at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a primarily subterranean electrical Page 7 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved transformer vault which will extend approximately two feet above the finished grade. The vault will have a heavy -duty galvanized grate on top and three benches will be inset into the south wall of the vault. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Andrew J. Rappaport, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on March 3, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled "Dillingham Center, Phase Il — Electric Vault" (sheet L 101), dated December 18, 2008 and "Dillingham Center, Phase II" (sheet SK -1), dated February 2, 2009, prepared by HOLT Architects, P. C., and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part ll, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe invited the public to address the Board. There being no one, Chairperson Howe asked Board members if they had any questions. Board Member Wilcox asked why the project was being proposed now rather than before. An Ithaca College representative explained that Dillingham Center is undergoing interior renovations this so it made sense to upgrade the electrical service to the building. Chairperson Howe closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Page 8 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Board Member Riha moved and Board Member Talty seconded the proposed resolution. With no discussion, Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-017. Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit, Ithaca College Dillingham Center – Electric Vault, Tax Parcel No.'s 41-1-30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4 MOVED by Susan Riha, SECONDED by Kevin Tally. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault project located on the Ithaca College campus at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a primarily subterranean electrical transformer vault which will extend approximately two feet above the finished grade. The vault will have a heavy -duty galvanized grate on top and three benches will be inset into the south wall of the vault. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Andrew J. Rappaport, HOLT Architects, 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 the project has, on March 3, 2009, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 3, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Dillingham Center, Phase II – Electric Vault" (sheet L 101), dated December 18, 2008 and "Dillingham Center, Phase II" (sheet SK -1), dated February 2, 2009, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault project finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A – L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such Page 9 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault project located on the south side of Dillingham Center on the Ithaca College campus, as described on the drawings titled "Dillingham Center, Phase 11 — Electric Vault" (sheet L101), dated December 18, 2008 and "Dillingham Center, Phase ll" (sheet SK -1), dated February 2, 2009, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, and b. submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, prior to the issuance of a building permit. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Tally, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of Acceptance of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final S /EIS) for the proposed 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. The Board will also be discussing the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Plan. No actions on the site plan will be taken at this meeting. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, Agent. Chairperson Howe solicited questions and comments from the Board. Board Member Conneman noted that the Environmental Review Committee raised a number of questions in their memo to the Board. Attorney Brock stated that the memo from the Committee was included in the Appendix and it lists the paragraph in which each concern raised was addressed. She went on to say that she had a few comments and stated that the minutes included in the F /EIS should be final minutes instead of draft Page 10 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved minutes. Attorney Brock went on to say that there were a couple of issues the Planning Board has periodically brought up. She wanted to point out how the F /EIS dealt with the issues and brought the Board's attention to Page 8, B1. The Board discussed response B1 and suggested wording be add to the section such as, "and should reduce rates and might reduce volumes of runoff to adjacent properties" and "should not worsen existing conditions and will be monitored periodically ". Attorney Brock confirmed with Mr. Walker that the additional wording was not imposing a hardship on Ithaca College because it is part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan requirements. Attorney Brock directed the Board's attention to Page 11, C2 regarding the monitoring plan; the Board was comfortable with the language. Going back to Page 8, under Section B -2 -2, Board Member Erb asked Mr. LeCaine to identify the correct contrasting word to ephemeral. Chairperson Howe solicited someone to move the proposed resolution. Board Member Conneman moved and Board Member Riha seconded. Attorney Brock suggested language changes to the resolution reflecting that the F /EIS had been amended at the meeting. With no further discussion, Chairperson Howe called for a vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -018: SEOR, Acceptance of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final S /EIS) as Complete, Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center – Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -4 and 42 -1 -9.2 MOVED by George Conneman, SECONDED by Susan Riha WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, on May 20, 2008, did adopt the Findings Statement for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, an August 19, 2008, did grant Final Site Plan Approval for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, including the condition that "an additional site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board will be required for the wetland mitigation once the location, size, and design of the replacement wetlands are finalized, including a long -term maintenance and monitoring plan, prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy" and 3. This project is the proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Ithaca College 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 Page 11 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved 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, and 4. The proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan, which requires site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, is part of the Athletics and Events Center project, which is a Type I action 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, and 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on December 16, 2008, re- established itself as lead agency to continue the coordinated environmental review of the proposed action as part of the Athletics and Events Center project, and 6. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on December 16, 2008, determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (S /EIS) shall be prepared and that a formal scoping process for the S /EIS will not be required, and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the Draft S /EIS (dated December 8, 2008) as complete on January 20, 2009; and 8. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the Draft S /EIS on February 3, 2009, and accepted written comments on the Draft S /EIS until February 13, 2009, and 9. The applicants have prepared a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final S /EIS), dated February 23, 2009, regarding the proposed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, and submitted said Final S /EIS to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for consideration of acceptance as complete; and 10. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed and amended said Final S /EIS at its meeting on March 3, 2009; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the Final S /EIS as amended at its meeting on March 3, 2009, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to take those steps, including filing a Notice of Completion of the Final S /EIS, as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, distributing the Final S /EIS to involved and interested agencies, as may be necessary or appropriate. Page 12 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Howe asked the Board if they had questions regarding site plan. Attorney Brock stated that there were a couple of things in the F /EIS that Ithaca College said explicitly that they would be willing to accept as conditions of site plan approval. These include: the installation of bird and bat boxes, and notification to property owners adjacent to the Rich Road site regarding the construction schedule and long term vision for the mitigation and wetland sites. She suggested the Board think of these items along with others to consider at site plan conditions. Board Member Wilcox asked for status of the entire project. Rick Couture responded that the Ithaca College Board of Trustees would be making their final decision at their May meeting. He was optimistic that the project would be moving forward. Mr. Kanter updated the Board on the proposed Conservation Easement and stated the Town Board would be adopting a resolution of support at its next meeting on March 9th Then there was brief discussion of the item being on the March 24th agenda. AGENDA ITEM Discussion regarding 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. Chairperson Howe stated that the Board was looking at the document to make sure comments made at the February 17th meeting were adequately addressed. He asked if the Board thought comments were adequately reflected in the revised draft scoping Page 13 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved document. Chairperson Howe was concerned about the commercial component, but was pleased with how those concerns were reflected in the document. Board Member Bosak noted that the majority of the comments made were about things that were already in the scoping document. Board Member Riha referred to the letter from the City regarding the demand on emergency services and public facilities the project would create. It raised the question as to whether there was sufficient capacity to serve the development. Referring to comments on the need for commercial development, Board Member Riha asked if growth inducing aspects of the project were part of SEQR review. Attorney Brock said that the Board should look at the project's impact on public services and facilities as part of SEAR review. Mr. Kanter thought that it was addressed under J1 and J2. He went on to say that consideration of business competition is not part of SEAR review. Mr. Kanter gave the example of a Board not being able to look at the competition of a Wal -Mart with stores on the Commons. Chairperson Howe directed the Board's attention to the letters from Joann Cornish and Tim Logue. Mr. Logue's letter suggested several intersections to be included in the review and the Board thought it appropriate to include the suggestions. Board Member Riha wanted to know if traffic would be reduced without the commercial development and thought it should be addressed. Mr. Kanter responded that the traffic analysis will have to look at how the commercial component affects the trip generation the applicant is talking about. Board Member Erb thought that it was addressed under Alternatives on Page 11, V(b). Board Member Wilcox recapped that the Board would like a traffic study that gives the impact of the residential component and the impact of commercial and residential development. Board Member Talty observed that they keep "adding" to West Hill. He did not know what the Board was doing; he understands what the Board is doing, but ultimately there would be more cars by the thousands. Board Member Riha thought that the Board should be considering putting in roads and more bridges over the Inlet as a scenario. Board Member Erb did not think the Board could force the applicant to start trying to plan out development in an area he does not own. Mr. Kanter explained that there are two things occurring at the same time, which is part of the problem: the Comprehensive Plan update and the review of Carrowmoor. He hoped that what the environmental impact statement and the traffic analysis would tell the Board is whether what the Board is talking about now is a problem based on the Carrowmoor development and other known developments in the area —not projecting other 10, 20 years of developments ahead. The Comprehensive Plan will have to look at the overall future picture of West Hill and all parts of the Town. Page 14 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Board Member Riha asked if the Comprehensive Plan was going to look at what were acceptable traffic flows in the process of putting it together. Mr. Kanter replied yes, along with mitigating measures that would need to be adopted at the applicant's responsibility to accommodate development in the transportation system. Board Member Riha thought it was important for the Board and the applicant to understand who decides that there is too much traffic. Mr. Kanter stated that in this particular case, the Planning Board decides if it is too much or not. Chairperson Howe added that the decision has to be based on the information they receive. Board Member Wilcox clarified that there are engineering criteria applied to intersections to determine its level of service. Board Member Conneman stated that previously the Board wanted the study to measure the intersections and that the measurements were based on actual counts instead of a book. Mr. Kanter explained that the traffic study has to be a combination of actual measurements and out of a book because it is hard to measure something that is not there yet. Mr. Kanter directed the Board's attention to Tim Logue's letter to the Town. He thought that Mr. Logue had very good points in his letter. Using comments from Mr. Logue's letter, Mr. Kanter suggested language changes to applicable sections. The Board did not support comments made in point 9 of Mr. Logue's letter and this item was not incorporated into the draft scoping document. Board Member Erb commented that the T -LEIS provides information on many of the intersections. Mr. Kanter agreed that there is a lot of existing data and it would help provide a stronger basis once the analysis is complete. Board Member Wilcox added that the State should also have recent traffic count data. Board Member Riha wanted to make sure that realistic assumptions were included in the document. Board Member Wilcox added that there was a difference between what the applicant was trying to tell the Board and what the traffic engineer will tell the Board. Chairperson Howe suggested language be included to address Board Member Riha's concern. Board Member Wilcox explained that the traffic engineer has to give professional results based upon real data or reasonable standards used. Mr. Kanter added that the traffic engineer will take the worst -case scenario and will assume the standard number of trips being generated by the household. Mr. Kanter directed the Board's attention to Joann Cornish's letter and noted that much of the letter contains opinion and not fact. He reviewed the factual suggestions with the Board. Board Member Wilcox noted that some of Ms. Cornish's comments were actually suggestions for what the Board should review during site plan. Board Member Riha brought the Board's attention to another comment that alluded to there being 9 years of construction. She thought that it might be a potential issue to have ongoing construction for 9 years. Mr. Kanter referred the Board's attention to H9 of the scoping document and said that the section does discuss the routes, frequency, Page 15 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved and duration of construction vehicular traffic and impacts on traffic operation. The section, however, did not address how it would affect the road network in other ways; Mr. Kanter suggested wording to address how road networks would be affected. Chairperson Howe thought that the phasing aspect of the project should also be included. Board Member Riha suggested that the scoping document include an estimate of how many months over what years phasing would occur. Board Member Erb stated she looked for the word "dust" in the document and did not find it. Attorney Brock suggested Board Member Erb look at section A3 to see if the language was sufficient. Mr. Kanter and Attorney Brock discussed language to add to the section to address construction phasing. Mr. Kanter then suggested adding another section, Section A4 to address other construction impacts and provided language that addressed dust and airborne pollutant concerns. Board members agreed to language changes /additions suggested by Mr. Kanter. Board Member Bosak stated that the elephant in the room was, what do we mean by nodal development? He did not understand how it aided the objectives of nodal development to build something on the hill when experts in nodal development think there is a bigger advantage by building next to an existing urban area. He thought that what the Town was doing was directly contrary to the direction laid out in the County Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Bosak stated that he is going to have a hard time approving the development of 400 units on West Hill when the Board knows the City is planning to build 600 units a few miles away. Board Member Wilcox asked Board Member Bosak, "what if the Town Board rezones the property with all requirements put into the law and the applicant matches the requirements ?" The Planning Board does not have a choice at that point. The Board may not like it, but if the project is consistent with the zoning it cannot be denied because the Board does not like it. Board Member Bosak countered that the Board had a larger responsibility to recommend policy. Board Member Wilcox explained that the Board has a legal responsibility and urged Board Member Bosak to talk with Attorney Brock about what the Board can and cannot do. Board Member Bosak did not agree. Board Member Riha added that the Planning Board can give feedback to the Town Board. Board Member Bosak referred to public comments that the Town has a larger responsibility other than just the EIS process and he agreed. He was reacting to the constant appeal to the principle that they are supposed to be doing something ecologically sound when in fact it looks to him like it is not. Page 16 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Board Member Conneman asked if the Comprehensive Plan addresses nodal development. Board Member Erb responded that the Committee has not discussed it yet. Board Member Wilcox stated that it does not matter if the Town Board rezones the property. Attorney Brock stated that the EIS looks at cumulative impacts, impacts on community services, open space, etc. and that is what is before the Board. Board Member Bosak understood and stated that that was why he was willing to wait until the EIS process was complete. He was trying to say that the Board has a responsibility beyond just reviewing environmental impact statements. The Board has a responsibility for recommending policy. He felt that it was starting to shape up as bad policy. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Board could, that evening, vote to send a recommendation to the Town Board to not rezone the property. He did not recommend doing that. Board Member Riha thought that was something the Board should discuss and Board Member Talty wondered why Mr. Kanter recommended against doing that. Mr. Kanter responded that he thought the environmental impact statement would provide the Board with answers to their questions. If after reviewing the environmental impact statement the majority of the Board decides that the project cannot be done without undue adverse impacts on the area, and it's not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then that will be the Board's recommendation to the Town Board. He felt strongly that the Board would be prejudging the project if they made that determination that evening. Chairperson Howe invited the applicant to address the Board. Mary Russell disagreed with the opinions expressed in Joanne Cornish's letter. Ms. Russell stated that she was drafting a response to Ms. Cornish based upon language in the County Comprehensive Plan. She added that the Board has to understand that the City of Ithaca is largely built - out except for some areas. This would not be an appropriate project to be located on a in the City. Board Member Bosak stated he looked forward to reading Ms. Russell's response. Steve Bauman added that the Comprehensive Plan also talks about the edge of the development and the project was within the edge of existing utilities. The location of the project increases the size of the municipality and preserves the farm acreage beyond the project. He stated that a lot of information will be provided in the findings statement, which would judge the answers to the questions the Board has. Chairperson Howe suggested that the Board bring comments to go into the statement to a future discussion. Mr. Kanter agreed and then quickly outlined comments from Mr. Crittenden's letter to the Board that should be included in the document. Board Member Riha noted that the applicant had talked about geothermal as an aspect of the project. She stated that if geothermal is put in, it could impact the groundwater. Mr. Kanter responded that that is a different context of groundwater analysis and if it was something Board Member Riha thought they needed to include then the Board Page 17 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved should discuss it at its next meeting. He thought the Board might want to hear more from the applicant regarding their plans with geothermal. Chairperson Howe asked if there was anything else that should be referenced that evening or discussed. Board Member Bosak referred to the letter from the owners of the Laughing Goat Fiber Farm and the owners' concern of maintaining the integrity of the agriculture zone on West Hill. He did not think the language in the document addressed that concern. Board Member Erb suggested additional language to be included in Section E4 that discusses the integrity of the Agriculture Zone. Board Member Erb stated she was taken by surprise while reading Ms. Cornish's letter where she said that the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan defined nodal development in a way that a de novo nodal development was not possible. Board Member Erb said that was not her general, broader concept of nodal development. Her concept of nodal development was a plan where instead of just sprawl, things were clumped together. She asked if her concept was wrong. Chairperson Howe said it depends upon who she asks. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board could spend time discussing nodal development. He thought that Ms. Cornish's commentary was from a City point of view and how the City deals with nodal development, Brownfield redevelopment and infill development, which is what they have to do because they don't have land to develop. Board Member Bosak argued that from the context of the County, there is a node called City of Ithaca. Board Member Erb stated that the County has several towns. Chairperson Howe stated that there are different interpretations and perspectives of nodal development. The Board agreed to schedule time in the future to discuss nodal development. Mr. Kanter stated that he would try to make further revisions to the document based upon what the Board discussed. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 651 Five Mile Drive AND PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility located at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/ -125' self supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11' -6" x 30' equipment shelter installed on a 20'x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide gravel access drive. Donn K. Page 18 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Carroll, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. Chairperson Howe noted for the record that he knows the owner of the property under discussion, but he felt that he could be objective and did not think it would influence his involvement in participating. He then recommended that the Board enter closed session to seek advice from Counsel. Board Member Riha moved and Board Member Talty seconded that the Board enter closed session. The Board entered closed session at 9:00 p.m. Upon motion by Board Member Riha and Board Member Conneman, the Board resumed regular session at 9:31 p.m. Chairperson Howe stated that the applicant would give a brief presentation and then he would open the public hearing for comments. Jared Lusk came before the Board and introduced himself and his colleagues, Rick Andres, Kathy Pomponio, Ashley Baker, Don Carroll, and Ken Cowly. He explained that Verizon Wireless has a coverage gap in the Coy Glen cell. Their proposal includes constructing a 125 foot tower on Mr. Carroll's property to provide coverage to the area. Mr. Lusk added that Verizon is involved in a million dollar upgrade for coverage in the Ithaca area. Verizon currently has an application pending in the Town of Dryden and have received an approval for a site in the City of Ithaca. Applications have also been completed in the Towns of Spencer and Virgil. Mr. Lusk explained that the Ithaca area is the busiest, most voluminous cell phone use area in Upstate New York. He directed the Board's attention to the map showing the proposed coverage area. Mr. Lusk asked if there were any questions. Chairperson Howe opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. and invited the public to address the Board. Gilbert Gillespie came before the Board and explained that he lives in a residential area. He understood where the tower would be erected and commented that it would be visible from most locations on Route 13A. Mr. Gillespie stated that the tower would be seen from most residences and would be an eyesore. He added that it would lead to the deterioration of the Glenside area environment with little or no benefit to area residence. Mr. Gillespie was concerned that property values may go down because of the industrial -type facility. Kathy Cook came before the Board and stated that she has lived on Coy Glen Road for most of her life. She has been involved with many discussions about keeping the area as intact as possible. Ms. Cook stated that in the past the Town has been very careful about how it has managed growth. She felt that this project warranted a lot of discussion and input from the neighbors. Ms. Cook added that the proposed tower is Page 19 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved close to the cemetery and Tutelo Park. It would also affect other developments in the area detrimentally. She did realize, though, that there was a process the Town needs to go through. Chairperson Howe stated that the Board would like to proceed in a structured way. The Board discussed the Telecommunications Act in Closed Session and where the Board has leeway to ask questions. Board Member Riha asked if there was a significant gap in coverage. Referring to the Verizon website, she noted that the area is shown as having coverage. She realized that there was a difference between providing coverage and the issue of capacity and dropped calls. Board Member Riha then asked if there was a threshold for the number of dropped calls. Mr. Andres responded that the coverage shown on the website is for someone standing on the street. The coverage shown on the map before the Board is for in -home and in- vehicle coverage. Board Member Wilcox read a quote from Tompkins Weeklys article on the proposed Verizon Cell tower in Dryden. He noted that the article discusses capacity needs, which tells Board Member Wilcox that there was not a gap in coverage. Mr. Lusk directed the Board's attention to application materials and explained that Verizon has two frequencies -850 and 1900. There was no doubt that the 850 coverage was full over the entire Ithaca area. The 1900 coverage provides capacity because the 850 system is full. Mr. Andres further explained that when the network reaches capacity, calls are dropped or calls are blocked. The network moves people to the higher pcs network when the lower frequencies are full. Board Member Riha asked if people then can then communicate internationally on the 1900 network; she understood that people were not able to do so on the 850 network. Mr. Andres was not familiar with the service plans available. Board Member Bosak stated that there was not a difference. Mr. Lusk corrected that the site is a pcs coverage site; the 1900 coverage is needed because the 850 is full. Board Member Talty asked, when comparing the two frequencies, what is the ultimate capability of the newer frequency in terms of the number of calls? Mr. Andres responded that it is relatively the same. There would be slightly better performance as far as numbers of users. Board Member Conneman stated he heard a Verizon radio ad saying that Verizon had terrific coverage all over New York State. He asked what Verizon considered terrific coverage. Mr. Andres replied that per their FCC license, Verizon is required to cover a Page 20 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved certain percentage of the population within certain timeframes, use, and years into the future. Verizon has fulfilled all of the population requirements for the license agreement. Board Member Bosak asked how many complaints there have been regarding lack of service. Mr. Andres was not familiar with the exact numbers, but did know that Ithaca was a trouble area with a fair number of customer complaints. Failures have also been showing up during monitoring of performance. Board Member Talty asked if other sites could be empowered to increase coverage if there is line of sight. Mr. Andres responded that they are at maximum. Board Member Talty then asked if new equipment could be brought in on existing equipment to improve the distance. Mr. Andres responded it was possible and was what the pcs system was. Ms. Pomponio added that the pcs frequency is a shorter wavelength so it doesn't see as far as the 850 megahertz site will see, which is why more pcs sites are needed to mimic the 850 coverage. Mr. Andres explained that the general rule of thumb was that for every 2 850 sites, 3 1900 sites were needed. Board Member Talty asked what the next frequency would be once the 1900 frequency was full. Mr. Andres responded that the pcs frequency was the highest they could go and realistically do wireless communication. Board Member Riha asked if a less obtrusive tower was possible. Chairperson Howe followed up by asking if the dishes need to be on the tower because it makes the tower more visible. Mr. Andres explained that each site needs to have a direct link back to the switch where the calls are routed. The microwave gives a redundant path to the switch. Every site on the Verizon network has either a landline or a microwave to connect back to another site. Ms. Pomponio further explained that redundancy was needed in case a storm knocks out power for the T -1 service and there were microwaves on the tower, the tower would be providing service to the customers who otherwise would not be able to communicate in an emergency situation. Board Member Erb asked why two dishes were needed. Ms. Pomponio explained that they would carry the traffic from another cell site to this cell site and then back to the switch. She stated it was a link system with the other cell sites. Board Member Talty asked for the capacity of a microwave. Mr. Andres responded that it was a higher frequency, but it was very focused. He did not know what its capacity was, but knew it was equivalent to several T -1 lines. Attorney Brock understood that there was a T -1 line at the site that connects so the people using handheld cell phones communicate with the tower via the panel antennas, which then take the call down to the T -1 line, which is connected to the land based national telephone network. She thought that it was connecting to the Verizon switch through the underground T -1 line. Someone would have the capability to make cell Page 21 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved phone call and having that sign work fine without the dishes, but the dishes are there for redundancy in case the T -1 lines that is connected underground back to the switch is down. Attorney Brock explained that the site could function without the dishes, but the site would not have the redundancy. Board Member Erb asked if there had to be two dishes on a site. Mr. Andres explained that each dish transmits and receives. Each dish points in a different direction. Board Member Bosak asked to explore whether this tower was the least obtrusive arrangements. He noted that there were other providers in the area with sites distributed around the area. He asked to what extent Verizon had explored cooperating with them that would enable Verizon not to have to build the tower or such an obtrusive tower. Mr. Lusk explained that they have evaluated that through their site selection tower. They were unable to cooperate with them because of the different frequencies; they do look to collocate antennas on those towers if it would be feasible. Board Member Bosak understood that it was technically impossible for Verizon to provide an adequate level of coverage to the area being discussed by any collocation arrangement or combination of collocation arrangements. Mr. Lusk responded that was correct; Verizon needs the tower. He further explained that they were able to collocate and cover portions from the surrounding property. Board Member Bosak did not recall seeing a model where Verizon colocated on all surrounding towers. Mr. Lusk stated that the Telecommunications Act allows the Town to regulate the location and the aesthetic of the facility. Verizon has colocated on most of the surrounding towers. Board Member Bosak asked if it was technically impossible for Verizon to provide adequate coverage to the Coy Glen area through any possible combination of collocation. He thought that the answer was, yes. Mr. Lusk responded that Verizon could not provide coverage to the Coy Glen area from the existing towers. Board Member Bosak asked what would be involved if Verizon were to locate their antennas on the Bostwick Tank with three other sites. Mr. Lusk thought the Bostwick tank was not available. Mr. Walker explained that the Bostwick Road water tank was available as a collocation site. It's a 30 foot tall tank that was modeled as an 80 foot tall tank. The Sapsucker Woods Tank was available but did not have the 150 foot coverage that Verizon wanted. Board Member Conneman stated that Verizon looked at other sites and said the sites were not interested. He noted that Exhibit U was incorrect; Maguire purchased Bill Cooke Imports, not Honda of Ithaca. Chairperson Howe stated that it sounded as if there was some confusion and the Board just wanted to bring it to Verizon's attention. Board Member Bosak asked if it was technically impossible for Verizon to cover the three holes with smaller installations that were not visually as offensive. Mr. Lusk stated that technically impossible would not be an accurate statement. They could put a series of antennas through the area and cover it. He questioned whether that would be Page 22 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved reasonable and consistent. He also questioned if it was legal for the Town to require Verizon to do that pursuant to the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Lusk responded no because it could be covered by the proposed site with a single antenna. Board Member Bosak stated he was not asking whether the area could be covered with an unlimited number of sites. He was asking whether the three holes could be filled with a smaller set of antennas. Mr. Lusk answered that they would have to put a series of the same number of antennas in each hole or a number of holes depending upon the location. Board Member Bosak understood that it was not technically possible without erecting multiple towers equal to the one proposed. Board Member Conneman asked if the Telecommunications Act addressed cost. He thought it mentioned something about making it difficult or impossible for a tower to be constructed. Mr. Lusk thought it was all provided in the application materials submitted to the Town; it was cited in the application materials previously provided to the Town. Board Member Conneman suggested that the Mr. Lusk provide the Board with the actual language of the Telecommunications Act and not case law. Board Member Bosak asked where in the Telecommunications Act it said what a reasonable cost was and where was the dividing line between a reasonable cost and an unreasonable cost. He asked what was the algorithm used to determine the dollar amount of a reasonable cost. Mr. Lusk responded that the information was provided in the legal argument of the document. The courts deemed a 16% increase as excessive in one case. Board Member Bosak asked if that was for a telecommunications facility. Attorney Brock responded it was for a local water project. Board Member Bosak asked where in the Telecommunications Act it defined the limit between reasonable and unreasonable cost. Mr. Lust responded that he thought Board Member Bosak was intentionally or unintentionally leaving out the discussion regarding public utilities in New York, which Verizon Wireless is a public utility under law. Attorney Brock stated that the Town does not deny that case law says that cellular telephone companies are public utilities in New York. The public utility standards cited by Mr. Lusk were applicable to use variances where zoning does not permit that particular use. There were also a number of things the Town was empowered to look at, including aesthetics. In looking at aesthetics, there have been a number of cases that have held where a site is particularly obtrusive and coverage can be provided by more aesthetically pleasing solutions, even if at multiple sites, courts have said Towns can look at that. Mr. Lusk directed Attorney Brock's attention to his papers where it cites the Spence Breckham vs. Town of Guilderland case. He read excerpts of the case to the Board. Attorney Brock countered that the case being referenced was a case before a Zoning Board of Appeals and the ZBA, in its determination, that service could have been provided from two towers located elsewhere. The court also said that the alternatives Page 23 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved were addressed by the provider and found to be impracticable with no further discussion as to what that meant. She stated that there was really no guidance as to what Board Member Bosak was asking, which was, what's the cutoff between what is deemed by courts in cellular telephone cases as to what costs were considered reasonable and were not. Attorney Brock stated she has 4 or 5 cases where the courts have said it would be reasonable to require providers to provide service from multiple sites. She volunteered to provide the cases to Mr. Lusk, but suspected he had read the cases and had copies of them. Mr. Lusk said he would love to read them and asked Attorney Brock to provide them to him. Chairperson Howe did not think the location was terrible. For him, it was trying to reduce the aesthetic impact. He asked if the tower could be less than 125 feet. Board Member Talty followed up by asking if there was standardization in cell tower height. Mr. Andres did not think there was standardization in cell tower heights because it depends on a lot of factors. Board Member Talty asked if there was a gray zone. Mr. Andres responded that it is generally 20 to 30 feet above the tree canopy. Board Member Talty then asked what was determined for this site because it was indicated before that Verizon needed this site. He wondered if the tower could be lower in another area. Ms. Pomponio responded that the search area was based upon the existing network around this site. The search area was where Verizon needs to be. Board Member Talty asked if the height of the tower could be lowered to a more reasonable height if other areas were utilized. Ms. Pomponio explained that Verizon was not going to consider building multiple sites where they could build and cover an area with one site. Board Member Talty stated that there were other areas in the country that have lower cell towers. Chairperson Howe asked if the tower could be less than 125 feet. Ms. Pomponio stated that Greg Handley would need to answer that question. Mr. Lusk stated that there was one lower height showed in the first submittal. Board Member Bosak asked if the costs of building multiple towers would be so cost prohibitive that Verizon would no longer would be able to provide affordable service to Town residents. Ms. Pomponio responded that Verizon Wireless was not going to set a precedent in any town where they could provide coverage to meet their coverage objective with one tower. The base station equipment for each site costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and Verizon would not duplicate that. Board Member Talty followed up by saying the Board may not be looking for two towers. The Board may be looking for the same tower being proposed as a lower height and collocation on another area. Ms. Pomponio responded that the base station equipment would still be duplicated. She explained that even if Verizon is collocating on one structure and building a tower at a lower height in a different area, the main cost for each facility was the bay station equipment, which had to be duplicated at each site. Page 24 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Chairperson Howe stated he thought they were looking at reasonable gap coverage and asked if Mr. Lusk found the modeling was. Mr. Lusk showed the Board propagation at 100 feet that demonstrated the lack of coverage. He offered to provide that to the Board. The Board discussed closing the public hearing before completing SEQR review and decided to leave the public hearing open. Board Member Erb commented that the coverage map was misleading because it shows the entire area of where the new tower will provide service instead of only where the new tower provides gap coverage. She wanted a map that properly showed the gain of coverage. Ms. Pomponio responded that the green on the second map was the pcs coverage and the blue on the first map was the 850 coverage. Mr. Lusk offered to provide that information to the Board. He did not think the maps were misleading, but would provide maps showing gap coverage. Board Member Erb appreciated that the tally sheet was redone, but did not think that the grading and clearing figures were accurate. Mr. Walker explained that the Engineering Department reviewed the sheet and found that the numbers were reasonable, and within SWPPP requirements. He stated that the amount of impervious surface and disturbed area is not that significant for the site. Board Member Erb stated that she would need a few items before site plan review: 1) a statement that of how soon the tower will be removed after 12 months of nonuse; 2) language and documentation regarding maintaining the vegetation around the base of the tower on Mr. Carroll's property. Mr. Lusk reviewed the items the Board wanted to see before the next meeting. Board Member Erb noted that the entire parcel will need to have some encumbrances on it regarding Mr. Carroll's ability to do things outside the project area. Mr. Lusk responded that Verizon was willing to work with the Town on what it deems as appropriate understanding that Mr. Carroll would like the opportunity to still use his property as a landowner and Verizon to use it for its purposes. Board Member Talty asked how many towers have been taken down over the past 20 years in upstate New York. Mr. Andres was not aware of any towers being removed. Mr. Lusk requested that Verizon be one of the first applications the Planning Board's next agenda. Mr. Kanter responded that he would not know the time for any items on the agenda until they get closer to the meeting date. Chairperson Howe thought it was reasonable for Verizon to appear earlier on the agenda. Report of Committees Page 25 of 26 Planning Board Minutes of March 3, 2009 Approved Board Member Erb gave a brief report of the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Please refer to meeting notes of the Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting for details of committee discussion. Approval of Minutes Board Member Wilcox moved and Board Member Erb seconded with corrections. Chairperson Howe called for vote — carried. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -019: Adopt Planning 2009 Board Minutes of February 17, 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 17, 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 17, 2009. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Wilcox, Conneman, Bosak, Erb. NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Talty. ABSENT. • Riha. The motion declared to be carried. Other Business Mr. Kanter reviewed the agenda for the March 24th meeting. Adjournment Upon motion by Board Member Riha, Chairperson Howe adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carrie Coat Whitmore First Deputy Town Clerk Page 26 of 26 PLANNING BOARD MEETING UJ / U;J / GUUy L- l'TAW MEINT R Alden/Baer Development March 2 2009 I am Bruce Rich and reside at 253 DuBois Rd (tax map22 -2 -21) which is 2 properties north and east of the proposed development. From my back deck and yard I can see a good portion of this total property. I want to be a good neighbor but I don't want to see more cluster housing along the DuBois Rd. My wife and don't feel that this type of housing fits in with the integrity of the main DuBois Rd neighborhood. We bought our property in 1973. All of the original houses, which were built after the Yenei farm property was broken into individual parcels years ago, are still inhabited. Since then many more housing units have been built with the addition of new roadway- Orchard Hill, Evergreen, Hinging Post and Woolf Lane. I bought my property for it's open space to bring up my children, a wonderful view, and a quiet roadway. I still have my view, at the moment, but now have a busy noisy road with more area housing, more people and less privacy. I know urban development is a reality but do we need more cluster housing? From a tax issue it puts more dollars into the town's coffers but I look at it as each year I pay more tax with less benefit. In a letter from the owners dated 1/25/09 to the planning board they want to subdivide into 3 parcels. They own 6 acres, and want to keep 5 acres leaving 1 acre for 2 houses. The owners also stated they want to share their 5 acre parcel with the owners of parcel lot A and B which would include but not be limited to sharing garden space, chickens, grapes, fruit trees, workshop, tractor and equipment. To me this means communal living. What could be next? Cows, pigs, sheep with no place to get rid of manure! I don't understand the concept of low, medium or high density housing. This DuBois Rd area is considered low density. To me low density would be a farming area where a single farmstead is surrounded by many acres of land. This certainly is not the case here on the DuBois Rd. In closing let me reiterate. I want to be a good neighbor but my wife and I don't feel there is a need to add extra housing, people and traffic to our community. To me a variance is put into place to protect the interests and values of surrounding properties if most neighbors within the immediate area agree and need not be broken period! Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns. Bruce H. Rich 253 Dubois Rd Ithaca .N.Y. . PLANNING BOARD MEETING 03/03/2009 ATTACHMENT #2 Nick Sturgeon, 08:36 PM 312/2009 -0500, development proposal Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:36:26 -0500 X PH: V4.1 @granitel To: bhr2 @cornell.edu From: Nick Sturgeon <nis6 @cornell.edu> Subject: development proposal X PMX Version: 5.3.1.294258, Antispam- Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam -Data: 2008.7.8.135319 Dear Bruce, As you know, my wife Joanne and I live at 240 DuBoise Rd, which is across the road from, and within easy view of the proposed Alden/Baer development. Two things about this disturb me. One is procedural: its remarkable, I think, for us to be informed of a board meeting on this proposal only three days before the meeting. (I'm not able to be at the meeting.) Second, I'm concerned that the proposal requires so many variances. There are, I think, very good reasons for not wanting cluster housing on DuBois Rd., and I'm opposed to this project. Best, Nick Sturgeon Printed for Bruce Rich <bhr2@cornel1.edu> PLANNING BOARD MEETING 03/03/2009 ATTACHMENT # Virginia Freeman, 08:41 AM 3/3/2009 -0500, Variance X Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:41:21 -0500 X PH: V4.1@granite1 To: Bruce H Rich <bhr2 @cornell.edu> From: Virginia Freeman <vwf1 @cornell.edu> Subject: Variance X PMX Version: 5.3.1.294258, Antispam- Engine: 2.5.1.298604, Antispam -Data: 2008.7.8.135319 Hi Bruce: I am not able to attend the meeting, but I am not in favor of the variance being considered for the properties identified with the 247 DuBois Road address. We already have water problems in the area, and the addition of more density in the area will just contribute to more. believe that these regulations were set up for a purpose, and to continually award variances seems to defeat the basic principles. When property is purchased, it is with the basic understanding of what is needed to build etc. Why continually disregard these policies. Regards, Virginia Freeman 258 DuBois Road Ithaca, NY 148950 PS N you need something differernt, let me know. Thank you. Virginia Freeman - ILR Registrar 101 Ives Hall, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 -3901 Off. 607 - 255 -1512 Fax: 607 - 255 -8533 vwfl@cornell.edu Printed for Bruce Rich <bhr2 @corne1l.edu> 1 PLANNING BOARD MEETING 03/03/2909 ATTACHMENT #4 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -2 -1.31, Low Density Residential Zone. Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I have lived at 249 Dubois Rd. since August 2008, having chosen this property after a very long search, largely because I found the rural nature of the immediate neighborhood appealing. Though my property is adjacent to that proposed for subdivision, I first heard of this proposal only yesterday, and regrettably have had little time to digest the planning documents that were provided to my neighbors, nor have I had opportunity to discuss this with Ms. Alden and Baer. Thus I can not speak to specifics, but can merely voice an overall concern that subdividing this parcel to allow construction of two new residences at its western end will indeed change the character of the neighborhood, and perhaps set precedent for similar development in the future. Surely, if the parcel must be subdivided, it can be done such that variance from the Town's lot requirements for a Low Density Residential Zone would not be required and the rural character of the neighborhood not be compromised? Thank you, Anna M. Stalter 249 Dubois Rd. / a (OW0 PLANNING BOARD MEETING 03/03/2009 ATTACHMENT #5 jK(D E 0 �11 I I love the beauty, the quiet of Dubois Road. Two new houses on the lot across the road will mean less view, more noise. This is not the right road for this kind of thing. The city has Overlook and should be able to concentrate development in certain areas without spilling over into areas that should be kept as pristine as possible. Thank you for your consideration. s Nina Kethevan PLANNING BOARD MEETING 03/03/2009 ATTACHMENT 3 -3 -09 Anna Smith, 242 DuBois Road I received Susan Ritter's notice of this hearing only yesterday evening, exactly one day before this hearing. Such acutely short notice suppresses the neighborhood's awareness of this hearing and our opportunity to become informed, as well as our opportunity to speak here tonight. How can tonight's consideration be both the preliminary and final subdivision approval when we don't even know what the footprint of the proposed two new houses will be? What size, what design, one or two stories high? What about the trees that now provide a screen along the road and along the sides of the property — is there any written commitment to maintain them as a screen, and to replace them as they die? As you know, this neighborhood is zoned for low density. That is a significant factor in the appeal of the neighborhood, which is usually tranquil, although traffic on DuBois Road has increased considerably with surrounding developments during my 17.5 years there. The Route 96 Corridor development project is already bringing high- density neighborhoods to West Hill and in a few years the whole semi -rural quiet open area will be transformed. If we must have high- density development on West Hill, it should be in the development nodes, not jammed into spaces that fail in a slew of ways to meet basic zoning requirements. Note, for example, that the proposed parcel B lacks more than 6,600 square feet (6,635) of the minimum required. Note also that the lot sizes claimed on the application material are exaggerated — the correct lot sizes are even smaller than represented. While the applicants assert that their requested subdivision is at the edge of the Route 96 Corridor development node at Cayuga Medical Center, the truth is that it is more than four - tenths of a mile beyond the outer edge of that node. If approved, these proposed subdivisions will be to the detriment of many for the benefit of just one. Please give us a break this time and maintain the low- density quality of our DuBois Road neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 3, 2009 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Alden / Baer 3 -Lot Subdivision, 247 Dubois Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -2 -1.31, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 6.0 acre parcel into three new lots, with Lot A being +/- 0.782 acres, Lot B being +/- 0.603 acres, and Lot C being +/- 4.615 acres and contains the existing house. Barbara Alden Guttridge & Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault, 953 Danby Road. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault project located on the Ithaca College campus at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a primarily subterranean electrical transformer vault which will extend approximately two feet above the finished grade. The vault will have a heavy - duty galvanized grate on top and three benches will be inset into the south wall of the vault. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Andrew J. Rappaport, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Acceptance of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final S/EIS) for the proposed 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. The Board will also be discussing the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Plan. No actions on the site plan will be taken at this meeting. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Discussion regarding 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. 8:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 651 Five Mile Drive. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility located at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 125' self supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11' -6" x 30' equipment shelter installed on a 20' x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide gravel access drive. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. 10. Approval of Minutes: February 17, 2009. 11. Other Business: 12. 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 HEARINGS Tuesday, March 3, 2009 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, March 3, 2009, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 247 Dubois Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22 -2 -1.31, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 6.0 acre parcel into three new lots, with Lot A being +/- 0.782 acres, Lot B being +/- 0.603 acres, and Lot C being +/- 4.615 acres and contains the existing house. Barbara Alden Guttridge & Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College Dillingham Center Electric Vault project located on the Ithaca College campus at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1- 30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The project involves the construction of a primarily subterranean electrical transformer vault which will extend approximately two feet above the finished grade. The vault will have a heavy -duty galvanized grate on top and three benches will be inset into the south wall of the vault. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Andrew J. Rappaport, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent. 8:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility located at 651 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -25.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 125' self supporting tower and wireless communications antennas, a 11' -6" x 30' equipment shelter installed on a 20' x 38' elevated platform, and a new 12' wide gravel access drive. Donn K. Carroll, Owner; Upstate Cellular Network d/b /a Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, February 23, 2009 Publish: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 Wednesday jig ruary 25 26091, ITHACA�lOURNAL Town of Ithaca Planning Board Sign -in Sheet Date: March 3, 2009 Please provide your contact information if you would like to be added to our e -mail fist to receive Planning Board Agendas in advance of meetings, Print Name e -mail KI C, M, T�t V r a f�� 1 I L (3 4-,:-1? - �� p �-e- r 1. G Ake "\Ae CICf .� bec,64.COX- . Town of Ithaca Planning Board Sign -in Sheet Date: March 3, 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 CJA) 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, March 3, 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: February 23, 2009 Date of Publication: February 25, 2009 5a�.Q4,x- Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 25th day of February 2009. C- Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20