Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-03-24FILE DATE 2a0 REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 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; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, First Deputy Town Clerk. Others Joe and Patty Amato, Monty Berman, Cathy Cook, Marguerite Wells, John Rancich, Steve Bauman, Don Crittenden, Matthew and Genna Knight, Ardyn and Gilbert Gillespie, Louis Russell -Cook, Mike Thorne, Jared Lusk, Gregory Handley, Tom Griener, Mary Russell, Will Burbank, Guy Gerrard, Claudia Brenner, David Ruddy, Diane Russer, Rick Couture, David.Herrick, Ron LeCaine. Call to Order Chairperson Howe declared the meeting duly opened at 7:02 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 March 16, 2009 and March 18, 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 March 18, 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. ANNOUNCEMENT Chairperson Howe announced that the Town Board has appointed a Planning Board Alternate, Ellen Baer. Ms. Baer will be starting as Planning Board Alternate at the April 21, 2009 meeting. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard No one. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved AGENDA ITEM SEOR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 651 Five Mile Drive AND CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Continuation of 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 This segment of the meeting began at 7:03 p.m. Chairperson Howe stated that the Board has received new information from the applicant and he asked the applicant to explain the new information. The Board would then open it up for public comments and then move to SEAR review. Jared Lusk introduced himself and his associates to the Board. The agents for the applicant included: Gregory Handley, Verizon Wireless RF Engineer; Tom Greiner, Nixon Peabody; Ken Cowley, Verizon Wireless Site Acquisition. Mr. Lusk stated that there were a number of issues raised by the Board and the public during the last meeting (March 3, 2009). One of the questions raised was whether or not Verizon could put up a shorter tower on the site. On March 18th, Verizon conducted the drive test. Greg Handley then described the drive test. Verizon brought down a man -lift and raised it to three different heights -125 feet, 100 feet and 80 feet. On the top of the man -lift there was a generator to provide power, a signal generator and antenna, and a piece of co -ax hooked from the single generator to the antenna. This allowed Verizon to put a signal up on the air and then he drove around many streets within the target cell to collect signal data. The data collection showed what the site would cover at the three different tower heights; this information was then plotted onto the maps before the Board. Mr. Lusk explained that Exhibit Z is a report that Mr. Handley prepared following the drive test data. Mr. Handley further explained that Verizon conducted the test to show the minimum height of a tower at this location. Referring to the maps in Exhibit Z, Mr. Handley stated that the roads in green represent the.useful signal and the red roads represent a non - useful signal on the PCS network. The blue area represents the existing signal on Verizon's live network. He explained that the blue and green overlap, which is good because calls are then not dropped at the edge of the coverage footprint. Page 2 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved Mr. Handley then walked the Board through the maps representing what coverage would be with an 80 -foot tower, 100 -foot tower, and 125 -foot tower. He noted that the drive test was done with no leaves or foliage in the area; foliage usually adds 8 -10 dbm of signal loss. Mr. Handley explained that the propagation tool they use is accurate in relation to the drive test data; it validates that what is shown on paper for propagation tools is accurate in the real world. He said that when they first got the tool 8 years ago they collected drive data and incorporated the drive data into the model. The tool has been tuned to be accurate so that when Mr. Handley is designing sites he is not putting sites where they do not need to be; sites are being designed where he knows the coverage is needed. Mr. Handley mentioned that there were questions about the possibility of colocating on the Bostwick Road Water Tank. He explained that the water tank is 35 feet high and he showed on previous documentation that there were holes in coverage and would essentially not provide coverage to the cell. Mr. Lusk stated that at the last meeting Board Member Erb asked that Verizon provide the Board with proof of the new coverage being provided. He brought the Board's attention to the last page of Exhibit Z and noted that the green had been changed to hatched marks so that the coverage difference could be seen. Board Member Conneman asked Mr. Lusk if he had read Mr. Amato's letter where Mr. Amato discussed his ability to communicate at Coy Glen. Mr. Lusk responded that he had not received Mr. Amato's letter. Board Member Bosak stated that the area is adequately covered at 850. He asked if the PCS system would handoff [calls] to 850. Mr. Handley replied that the PCS will not hand down to the 850, which is why Verizon needs to have the continuation of the PCS coverage. He explained that people can currently make calls on the 850 network, but when the 850 network gets full and there are no more channels available the phones will rollover to the PCS network. The caller will then not be able to make phone calls; they will get a blocked call or if they are transitioning out and the 850 network is full on a neighboring site the call will be dropped. If this site were established and the caller was on.the PCS network, the caller would be able to make that call or continue her /his call as s /he moves into the Coy Glen cell. Board Member Bosak responded that the scenario they have is not that Joe Average on the phone is going to experience a drop -out. The scenario is someone who's operating the phone during the time when the 850 capacity is maxed out and has not been hooked up to the 1900 —that person won't be able to connect. Mr. Handley indicated Board Member Bosak was correct. Chairperson Howe brought the discussion back to the applicant's presentation. Page 3 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved Mr. Lusk stated that at the last meeting Mr. Conneman requested that Verizon reevaluate whether the car dealership on Elmira Road was _owned by Honda of Ithaca or Mr. Maguire. He said that Mr. Conneman was correct and Verizon has contacted Mr. Maguire; there have been preliminary discussions with Mr. Maguire about potentially leasing the site. Mr. Lusk then presented a large scale map of Exhibit AA. He oriented the Board to the Maguire site and the proposed tower site. He then listed a number of issues with the Maguire site: there are no trees surrounding the site, there is a walking trail behind the site. Mr. Lusk noted that Mr. Carroll's property is more desirable aesthetically because it is surrounded by trees on the site. Mr. Lusk then stated that at the last meeting the Board mentioned it wanted an agreement between the Town and Verizon that required the tower to be removed after 12 months of nonuse. The draft agreement was included in Exhibit BB and the agreement specifies the tower has to be removed within 90 days after the 12 month period of nonuse. Mr. Lusk went on to say that he would like to discuss the creation of encumbrance on the Carroll property to preserve trees that will remain following construction of the site. He explained that Exhibit CC includes the tree survey completed by Verizon. The trees shown in green will remain and the trees shown in black will be removed. Mr. Lusk added that Mr. Carroll wants to preserve the trees as well, but at the same time balance his right to build a house amongst the other trees in the future while continuing to preserve the trees that provide screening of the tower. The Board also asked at its last meeting for further research whether a municipality can require multiple sites where one site is sufficient. Mr. Lusk said that letter was provided to Attorney Brock with cases cited. Additionally, a number of. issues have been raised. One, Mr. Lusk received a letter from a concerned resident regarding the potential health affects of a tower on the proposed site. Information has been provided to the Board regarding the safety of the project. He noted that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 has deemed so long as towers are operating within RF*standards the Board cannot use it as a basis to approve or not approve the project. , Mr. Lusk directed the Board's attention to Exhibit EE and noted that the Board raised the question of whether or not the microwave dishes were needed. He explained that the microwave dishes are a vital part of the network ending area and Verizon is just building out the network. At this point, Verizon is still planning the network and they have to rely on how many other sites around this. Verizon has agreed to remove the microwave dishes until the microwave plan can be developed in the future. Exhibit EE provides simulations of the tower without the microwave radios; the tower is shown as a monopole and a lattice tower. Chairperson Howe asked Board Members if they had points of clar Ac ation for Mr. Lusk. Board Member Conneman stated that he has asked Mr. Lusk twice to provide a letter indicating the Federal regulation. Mr. Lusk responded that he has provided that to Ms. Brock. Board Member Conneman argued that Mr. Lusk provided case law, not Page 4 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved language of the Federal regulations. Mr. Lusk replied that in his opinion case law is as important.as the statute itself. Chairperson Howe explained to the public that this was considered a public utility so it is positioned differently as to what the Board can control and not control. Board Member Bosak asked for clarification on questions he previously asked. 1) It has already been stated that Verizon has 850 MHz coverage over the entire Coy Glen area. Is it technically possible to provide 1900 MHz coverage to the Coy Glen area with a less obtrusive tower at the Five Mile Drive site if other Verizon transmitters are colocated on existing facilities? Mr. Handley responded that all of their PCS coverage is currently colocated on existing Verizon Wireless sites. He did not find any towers in the cell to provide the needed coverage. Board Member Bosak recapped that no possible colocation arrangement using existing facilities could provide 1900 MHz coverage with a less obtrusive tower. Board Member Bosak's second question: Is it possible to provide 1900 MHz coverage to the Coy Glen area using some combination of towers, all of which are less tall than the proposed tower? Mr. Lusk responded that it was possible, but it wasn't feasible and reasonable. Board Member Bosak's third question: Where in either statute or case law has a criterion been established for determining whether the added cost of mitigating the adverse visual impact of the telecommunications facility is reasonable or unreasonable? Mr. Lusk answered that the information is in the letter given to Ms. Brock and provided to the Board as Exhibit DD. Board Member Bosak followed up by asking at what point, economically, is that determination made. Mr. Lusk stated that the cost of multiple sites is in the antennas and transmitting facility. The only difference between colocating and building a new tower would be the cost of the tower. Mr. Griener added that Verizon pays higher rents when they locate on someone else's tower; it is cheaper for Verizon to build its own tower. Board Member Bosak stated that, according to Verizon's testimony, Verizon is required to cover a certain percentage of the population within certain timeframes and level of use. He noted that Verizon was now making the argument that the Board could not deny their application for a tower because doing so would violate the Telecommunications Act and case law relating to public utilities. Discussion of Verizon's status as a public utility continued with case law being cited. Board Member Bosak then asked how the applicant could maintain that the proposed facility is required to render safe and adequate service and that denying their request would prevent users from accessing landlines when 1) the area is already covered by Verizon service according to their advertising, statements in the press, and statements Page 5 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved to the Board, 2) the same area is also covered by at least one of their competitors, and 3) the current level of service meets FCC requirements for. cell coverage. Mr. Greiner responded that the Telecommunications Act and New York State Law are not congruent. The Telecommunications Act and State Law have different criteria. He added that Federal Circuits are not congruent either —there is no controlling case. Mr. Greiner went on to say that they feel the proposal creates the least detriment under State Law. He went on to say that without Verizon's ability to build the 1900 MHz system in the area, there will be coverage problems in the future. Mr. Greiner added that Verizon has-been trying to build a system -that is really reliable —not only for the general public, but for emergency service functions as well. Board Member Riha expressed the perspective that the Town of Ithaca is a high -tech town with a lot of college students and felt that the Town does not want the minimum cell phone coverage, but the best cell phone coverage in Upstate New York. She read an article in the New York Times that described Verizon as the cell phone company providing the best national coverage, but there is not a company poised currently to serve the second- and third - generation cell phones. There is going to need to be more towers to provide needed coverage. Mr. Handley stated that the Ithaca and Binghamton areas have the most capacity demands on the Verizon network in Upstate New York. Verizon's 850 MHz system is filled up. The PCS network is being built up to allow customers to make a phone call when they want to make a phone call. He explained that the PCS system only covers half the footprint of the 850 system, which is why Verizon needs more sites. Board Member Talty asked if Mr. Handley could quantify how much capacity is on the PCS system versus the current system. Mr. Handley responded that the PCS network is being used minimally. Verizon predicts that next year they will be at the point where they have to have the PCS network. Currently Verizon is receiving minimal calls on the PCS network in the Ithaca area. Board Member Talty clarified his question and asked if the PCS network had double or triple the capacity of the 850 network. Mr. Handley responded no. Currently they have eight 1.258 MHz carriers on the 850 network; the PCS network has 5 carriers. Board Member Talty then asked what the next - generation network would be after the PCS network is filled. Mr. Handley responded that the next generation is the 700 MHz frequencies and would be used basically for data. Board Member Talty asked if the 700 MHz system can co -exist on current towers. Mr. Handley responded yes and that is exactly what Verizon would do. The 700 MHz system will have a slightly bigger footprint than the 850 MHz system. Board Member Talty asked why Verizon did not go with the 700 MHz system first. Mr. Handley explained that the 700 MHz licenses were not auctioned off until about a year ago. Verizon won that auction in August and currently the equipment and phones for that system are not available. The system is not ready for commercial launch at this point. . Page 6 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved Board Member Erb asked how Mr. Handley determined to test signals at 100 feet and 80 feet. Mr. Handley answered that the tower stacks come in 20 foot sections so he generally tests in 20 foot increments. Mr. Greiner added that he had asked Mr. Handley to test at 80 and 100 feet because he was anticipating the Board would want to know if an 80 foot tower would be sufficient if a lower tower of 100 feet would work. Board Member Erb asked if both the monopole and the lattice tower are engineered to crumple. Mr. Handley responded yes. Board Member Erb then asked if one tower caused more ground disturbance at the site to allow it to be laid out. Mr. Handley responded no, both towers are stacked in sections. Board Member Erb followed up by asking whether there.would be guy wires on the site. Mr. Handley answered no. Chairperson Howe asked if the tower platform was the same. Mr. Handley explained that the platforms were not the same because the lattice tower has three points on the ground where it is anchored in and the monopole is anchored at one point. Mr. Walker clarified that this site would have a raised platform because it is in the floodplain and the platform would be the same size because of the equipment - shelter. Board Member Wilcox asked the applicant to expand upon their conversation with Mr. Maguire about his import property. Mr. Cowley replied that he contacted Mr. Maguire and they have had preliminary conversations. Mr. Maguire did not give an immediate yes or no answer. ` Board Member Wilcox asked if there was the potential for a second site for two shorter towers. Mr. Handley stated that if they erected a 75 -foot tower it would be below the height of some of the trees and the site would be basically useless. He added that it was possible, but the cost of the tower would be doubled. He explained that the towers would be less than half -a -mile apart and it would generate a lot of overlap, redundant coverage and interference. -It is not an ideal situation for the way the phones would work and would not benefit the network. Board Member Talty asked if Verizon was erecting a tower(s) in a bordering town that would bring coverage into the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Handley responded yes, the Town of Dryden. Attorney Brock asked if there were any mechanisms to mitigate the visual impact of the antenna arrays. Could Verizon use smaller antennas or put the antennas inside the pole? Mr. Handley explained that every time the height of the antenna is reduced, it reduces the gain of the antenna. This results in a smaller footprint being covered. Mr. Greiner added that they have tried putting antennas inside large flag poles and the antenna performance is really poor. He went on to say that they have successfully painted towers in the Adirondack Park. The Park Agency believes that a darker color is. more preferable than a white or gray color because it blends in with the hillside. Board Member Erb asked what the impact would'be of a camouflage - colored pole. Mr. Greiner responded that they had not painted a camouflage pole before, but in the Town Page 7 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved of Pittsford they painted the pole bluish with white clouds, at the request of a board member and staff member; the two gentlemen think it looks better, but no one else does. Mr. Kanter redirected back to the Maguire property and asked if Verizon had done any preliminary analysis to see what height a single tower on that location would need to be. Mr. Handley had not run a site on that property because he has not heard back that the landlord would allow Verizon to put a tower on the property. Mr. Kanter asked Mr. Handley if he had a ballpark estimate of how high the tower would need to be on that .site. Mr. Handley guessed it would be approximately the same height. Chairperson Howe then invited the public to address the Board. Ms. Patti Amato came before the Board and brought with her a rendering of the. neighborhood surrounding her home on Five Mile Drive. Ms. Amato spoke passionately about the character of her neighborhood and used her rendering to illustrate (and describe) the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Amato stated that the tower would be an eyesore and she worried about what would happen after the cell tower is in place. She felt that the tower was a commercial use and was not a public utility used for emergency purposes. Eventually people in the area will want to sell their vacant land and the cell tower is going to bring down the value of the property. She stated that people are not going to choose to build a house that has a full view of the cell tower. She thought people would then be coming to the Town for variances due to hardships in selling their property. Ms. Amato went on to say that they were going to find industry coming into the neighborhood because of it. Mr. Joe Amato came before the Board and stated that Mr. Handley has talked about a capacity site and a coverage site. He noted that in Exhibit F it states that the problem is a lack of direct wireless coverage. Mr. Amato said he heard that evening that it was a capacity issue, not a coverage issue. He understood, now, that it was a capacity issue and not a coverage issue. Mr. Amato stated that if the -85 dbm criterion exists for signal strength to be useful at the 850 MHz frequency band as well as the higher frequency band then it looked from the computer simulation in Exhibit F that the signal strength is about 20 higher than it needs to be at 850 MHz. Mr. Amato then directed the Board's attention to Exhibit T, which discusses the Bostwick Road Water Tank possible colocation. The analysis identifies three holes in coverage that would exist using a 125 foot tower colocated with the water tower. He stated that hole number one is along Route 13 and the result of the simulation is that that hole opens up because of the distance from the site. He said that was okay if one accepts a rather off - the -cuff approximation that was given that at 1900 MHz one mile is the range of communications. That means that if the criterion for reliable communications is given as -85 dbm that is the number that is going to be used. Hole Page 8 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved number two is located at the Route 13 /Route 13A intersection and is a result of the antenna orientation in the simulation. If the antennas were rotated 15 degrees, the hole would disappear. The third hole is in Coy Glen and arises because Coy Glen is not quite in the line of sight of a tower at the water tower location. Mr. Amato was not sure that Verizon could say that if it is not in the line of sight there is no possible communication. He noted that the analysis was done at 1900 MHz and an analysis was not done at 850 MHz. Mr. Amato mentioned the analysis of missed calls. He noted that there were 25 failed attempt calls in the three holes previously mentioned during one weekend in December. Verizon suggests that because of the footprint of the higher frequency band is smaller, it would double the number of missed calls (which is unacceptable to Verizon). Mr. Amato thought that sounded good, but that the analysis was too simple. The increase in number of dropped calls does not take into account that the new facility has extra 850 MHz coverage as well as 1900 MHz coverage. Mr. Amato wrapped up his comments by stating that the application was not all about providing coverage to Coy Glen. He explained that the site was a vital link for Verizon and their 1900 MHz cellular network. Mr. Guy Gerrard came before the Board and made comments regarding the article in the Ithaca Journal about Verizon's application before the Town. He quoted the article statement that the Town could not require Verizon to construct two towers when coverage could be provided through one tower. Mr. Gerrard stated that the Town did not require anything from Verizon; Verizon came to the Town and asked for help. He noted the Town as willing to help, but not under the banner of "now you have to walk tight otherwise you break the law ". Mr. Gerrard did not know how Verizon was considered a public utility because public utilities have eminent domain powers. He said the airwaves belong to the people and no one can own the airwaves. Mr. Gerrard thought it was important for the Board to keep those things in balance. He felt cell phones should not be provided at the expense of the quality of life. He stated that the Planning Board's job was to protect the interest of its constituents. Ms. Claudia Brenner came before the Board and stated that she has 4 Verizon cell phones in her household and nary a missed call. She did. not think the Coy Glen area, including herself, were worried about missed calls. She was not even worried if she had to use her landline. Ms. Brenner stated that her confidence level in the exploration of sites that meet the criteria laid out in the ordinance is shaken — partially through the evening's discussion and the lack of what she thinks is a thorough investigation of sites that would meet the Town's criteria and listed priority of siting locations. She added that it would be unconscionable for the Board to approve a site in a low density residential neighborhood before a site in an industrial zone such as the Maguire site. Ms. Brenner was not fully satisfied with the exploration of the Bostwick Road Water Tower site because the Ordinance states clearly in priority level every possible avenue to colocate Page 9 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved is explored. She assumed that industrial and commercial sites would be explored before high density residential, medium density residential and lastly low density residential was explored. Ms. Brenner stated that the Board would be remiss should there be a potential location on Route 13 and the Route 13 corridor that.could be pursued by Verizon. Ms. Brenner then stated she did not understand tower height and how signals are sent because the Bostwick Road Water Tank site was approximately 100 feet higher than the proposed site. It did not make sense to her to locate towers in the lowest possible grade. She reiterated her feeling that a real effort was not made to find alternative sites and added that once a tower exists it becomes the main priority for other cellular providers. Mr. Gil Gillespie came before the Board and wondered why a 1970s court case seemed to be the governing case when the cell phone was only 25 years old. He then presented aerial maps of the area along with aerial maps of Germany. See Attachment #1. Mr. David Ruddy came before the Board and asked how the Board came to a technical determination of the accuracy of the Verizon claims about the needs for this tower. He stated that the aesthetics of the proposed tower and the proximity of commercial property to the tower were startling to him. Mr. Ruddy wanted to know why the tower was not sited on commercial property. He felt the neighborhood would be changed by the presence of the tower. Mr. Will Burbank came before the Board and thanked the Board for the thoughtful discussion they have been having. He stated that the Board has been getting a sense of how people in the Glenside neighborhood feel about preserving their neighborhood character. He thought the underlying concern was the unintended negative consequences of the proposed tower. Mr. Burbank encouraged the Board to put the application on hold and urge Verizon to explore other sites. He knew that the County's Solid Waste Transfer Station was a possible site but also thought there was other potential County land that the County was willing to consider. Mr. Burbank then encouraged the Board to call upon the Town Board to conduct an independent study of the necessity of the tower. He had no reason to doubt, or the ability to analyze, the technical information presented to the .Board, but he did not think the information should be taken at face value. He felt strongly that the Town had a compelling interest to hire a consultant for an independent study. Mr. Burbank suggested it be done in tandem with the City of Ithaca and the Town of Dryden. Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Burbank, as a Tompkins County Legislator, if he was offering up the possibility that the County would revisit using the County Recycling Center parcel as a potential site. Mr. Burbank responded no; he was curious why the Page 10 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved County turned it down especially since it was facing revenue issues. He also understood from conversations with the County Attorney that it was not a blanket denial of all County sites —just that particular site. Attorney Brock asked if the County owned land in the vicinity of the Recycling Center besides that particular parcel. Mr. Burbank was not sure, but thought that the area of the County Public Works Facility was explored. Ms. Margaret Gillespie came before the Board and questioned the necessity of the tower. She wondered why only options with Verizon were being discussed. She asked if the Board should be looking at it more broadly. Ms. Diane Russell came before the Board and stated that this application reminds her of when the neighborhood was unhappy that Wal -Mart and Home Depot were being constructed. She felt that if Verizon constructs the tower, Floral Avenue will be a commercial area. Ms. Russell wanted to keep the commercial property away from her neighborhood. The tower represents further encroachment into the neighborhood. She felt it was time to say, "No, we don't want the tower in our neighborhood." Ms. Marguerite Wells came before the Board and stated that she lives in Enfield. She went on to say that a cell tower does not impose serious commercial zoning in neighborhoods. Ms. Wells has several cell phone towers around her in Enfield. She stated that cell towers are not like Home Depot; they can disappear into trees and not change the whole character of a neighborhood. The cell towers have not seemed to change Enfield very much. Chairperson Howe stated that the Board will ask the applicant to come back up and they will go through some of the issues raised by the public. Chairperson Howe stated that the Board takes -neighborhood character very seriously. Board Member Talty added that some of the statements made by the public that evening were covered by the applicant at a previous meeting. Chairperson Howe asked if rotating antennas on other sites would help with the dropped calls. Mr. Handley explained that the proposed site is a PCS coverage site, which is required for an 850 MHz capacity issue. There is no PCS coverage in the Coy Glen cell. He explained that Verizon has blocked and dropped calls in the entire area. The calls were in the areas where the coverage holes would open up and in the general Coy Glen area currently on the 850 network. As stated in the narrative, if Verizon was able to have the data, the Board would see twice the amount of those ineffective attempts and lost calls because the coverage footprint is half the 850 network. Mr. Handley went on to say that he could change the antennas, but it would result in pulling coverage from another area. He explained that he not only has to design the system, but he has to make it work and is responsible for it afterwards. Verizon has had a lot of issues in-the past where sectors have been touching each other or overlapping; Page 11 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved this creates a lot of system reuse and redundant'overlapping coverage that is a waste of resources. Verizon tries to keep space in between the sectors so that the overlap is on the site, but not a lot of overlap. Chairperson Howe stated that there was confusion over the public utilities issue. Attorney Brock explained that a State Court has ruled that cellular telephone companies are considered public utilities in New York and they are subject to the standards that apply to those companies even though they don't have eminent domain power. Board Member Erb added that a for - profit public utility establishing a tower in the Coy Glen neighborhood has nothing to do with opening the LDR zoning to all of a sudden having commercial and industrial uses coming into the neighborhood. Mr. Handley added that other cellular companies would be able to colocate on the Verizon tower. Verizon sites are built with the ability for other companies to colocate on them. Board Member Bosak asked if there was a functional difference to having the PCS coverage aside from increasing capacity. Mr. Handley explained that the services are the same on the 850 and 1900 phones. Chairperson Howe asked Mr. Handley to address the elevation of the tower. Mr. Handley responded that the tower would be pulling the same coverage as it goes up the hill. The 850 network will see increased coverage with increased elevation, but the PCS has a smaller footprint than the 850. H6-said it had more to do with the shifting in a distance to the northwest as opposed to that location. The entire location is moved up the hill and away from Route 13, Route 13A and the surrounding area. Mr. Handley explained that Verizon was not just trying to cover Route 13, but the entire area. Verizon wants more PCS sites built so that when that frequency starts being used more the customers in that area will have no knowledge that they are using a PCS service. Chairperson Howe thought that it would be up to the Board to decide whether they feel other sites have been fully explored. He then noted that a 1970 court case seems to be defining how the application is playing out. Attorney Brock corrected that the court case she referred to was a 1993 case involving a cellular phone company., Chairperson Howe stated that the Board is often in the position of not having background expertise in the subject matter of applications. He explained that the Board relies on doing studying, asking hard questions, expert testimony, and staff and public input. Board Member Bosak thought that the most relevant question brought up during the public hearing was the exploration of other sites. Attorney Brock stated that the Verizon representatives have made representations that their site will be used for emergency services. She explained that the County does not Page 12 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved rely on cell phone coverage for emergency services and has its own system of towers setup with handheld radios. Chairperson Howe asked the Board how far they wanted to go with the application that evening. He noted that the public hearing could not be closed until a determination on SEQR has been made. Chairperson Howe asked the Board to suggest concrete steps to move forward. He thought that he heard the exploration of alternative sites as one step. Board Member Wilcox wanted to pursue County sites as possibilities. He was aware of the fact that he was representing the Town of Ithaca and hoping to move the tower into the City of Ithaca. He clarified that that was not his purpose, but he was trying to find a better site for the tower as opposed to an area zoned residential. Board Member Erb stated that she was in the minority opinion. She liked the idea of burying the bottom 80 feet of the tower in woods. She wanted to make sure that the bottom 80 feet was painted dark to blend in with the woods. Board Member Erb did not dislike the site all that much if the Board could get the bottom of the tower painted dark, the top painted a light color, and a tree preservation plan in place. Chairperson Howe stated that it was easier for him to think about the tower without the microwave antennas. He did not have a strong feeling between the lattice tower and the monopole. Board Member Bosak agreed with Board Member Erb in that he did not think the commercial sites were an improvement. He agreed with Verizon's position in the latest packet regarding the Maguire facility. Board Member Bosak would like to know if there is a piece of County land that is not so exposed, but he did agree that almost all the other sites were worse than the proposed site. Board Member Talty thought that the Board owed it to the public to continue the discussion further and have Verizon come back to the Board with a full complement of all properties in and around the area. He thought that the impact of a 125 foot tower on Route 13 was huge. Board Member Conneman argued that it was better to put the tower,in a commercial area where no one cares. Board Member Talty hoped that everyone remembers what they are talking about when the windmill goes up behind Ithaca College. Board Member Riha stated it was not clear to her that putting the tower right on Route 13 was the best option. Board Member Conneman reiterated that Route 13 was a commercial area, not a residential area. Board Member Talty clarified that the tower was a utility and that did not matter. Board Member Wilcox asked who recognized the cell tower in Cayuga Heights and who knows that it's there. He followed up by asking how often it is seen. He stated that most people do not realize it is sitting there off of Pleasant Grove Road. Page 13 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved Chairperson Howe recapped that some Board Members feel that the location might not be terrible because of the trees or right on Route 13 where it might be more of a visual hindrance, but the Board would like to have the County properties explored. Mr. Lusk responded that it was a reasonable request to explore other sites further and that Verizon would do so. Board Member Erb stated that she wanted to have a serious discussion at the next meeting about tree preservation on the site. Board Member Conneman added that Verizon needs to think about what is going to happen a few years into the future. Mr. Handley responded that the proposed site is that plan looking into the future. Chairperson Howe thanked the applicant and the public. The Board ended discussion at 9:28 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of acceptance of the Final Scoping Document 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. Chairperson Howe asked the Board if there were any questions. The Board reviewed the Findings Statement and made minor housekeeping changes. Attorney Brock directed the Board's attention to Page 5, Item A3a, Project Phasing. The sentence should read, "Detailed description of proposed project phasing including subphases of development and periods of time that construction will be underway for each subphase." Board Member Talty moved and Board Member Erb seconded the proposed resolution. Attorney Brock suggested changes to the resolution that reflected the document had been amended at the meeting. Vote — carried unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009-020: Acceptance of Final Scopin_g Document, Carrowmoor Development & Planned Development Zone, Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 14.2, Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis Erb. Page 14 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering approvals for the proposed Carrowmoor development project located off Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), north of Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, Agricultural and Medium Density Residential Zones. The proposal includes 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, and 2. 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 ! 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, and 3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1; and additional application materials have been submitted by the applicant for the above - described action, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, through a sub - committee, has drafted a local law outlining the requirements of the proposed Planned Development Zone (PDZ), and 5. The Town of Ithaca Town Board at its meeting on September 8, 2008 reviewed the draft Local Law establishing a PDZ for the proposed Carrowmoor development, and referred the draft Local Law in conjunction with the development proposal to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and 6. The Town of Ithaca Town Board at its meeting on September 8, 2008 requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board act as lead agency for purposes of coordinating the environmental review of the project pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQR) and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code, and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting on October 7, 2008 reviewed a sketch plan for the proposed Carrowmoor development and indicated its.intent to serve as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed development, and 8. The Carrowmoor developers submitted a letter, dated September 15, 2008 indicating that they are committing to producing a full Environmental Impact Page 15 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved Statement on the project, as an integral part of the development review process for the Carrowmoor development, and 9. The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board, distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on October 14, 2008, and received no objections to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on this matter, and 10. The Planning Board, having reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, and having received no objections from involved or interested agencies, established itself as lead agency at its meeting on January 6, 2009 to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed Carrowmoor development, and 11. The Planning Board issued a positive determination of environmental significance at its meeting on January 6, 2009 in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed for the reasons stated in the EAF Parts 11 & Ill, and, confirmed that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be prepared, and 12. The Carrowmoor developers have submitted a Draft Scoping Document (dated December 30, 2008, revised January 12, 2009) outlining the proposed scope and content of a DEIS for the Planning Board's consideration, and the Planning Board has reviewed and discussed said Draft Scoping Document at its meeting on January 20, 2009, and 13. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board accepted the Draft Scoping Document for the proposed Carrowmoor development, dated December 30, 2008, revised January 12, 2009, as adequate for purposes of obtaining comments from the public and involved and interested agencies regarding the scope and content of the DEIS for the Carrowmoor development, and 14. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board held a Public Scoping Session on February 17, 2009 in order to obtain comments from the public and involved and interested agencies regarding the scope and content of the DEIS for the Carrowmoor development, and accepted written comments on the Draft Scoping Document through February 27, 2009, and 15. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting held on March 3, 2009, has reviewed a revised Draft Scoping document (Revised February 25, 2009) for the proposed Carrowmoor development and copies of all written comments and records of all oral comments made at the public scoping sessions, and agreed on further revisions to that Draft Scoping Document, and Page 16 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved 16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting held on March 24, 2009, has reviewed a further revised Draft Scoping Document, dated March 17, 2009, and the Planning Board further revised said document, which also includes a summary of those prominent issues that were raised during the scoping process and determined to be not relevant or not environmentally significant, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby determines that the Draft Scoping Document, dated March 17, 2009 and revised on March 24, 2009, for the Carrowmoor development adequately incorporates the relevant comments and concerns of the Planning Board, the public, and involved and interested agencies, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby accepts the above - referenced Draft Scoping Document, dated March 17, 2009 and revised on March 24, 2009, as the Final Scoping Document and as being adequate to define the scope and content of the Carrowmoor Environmental Impact Statement. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Tally, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None The motion declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of adoption of the Findings Statement 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 considering the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Plan. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, Agent. Board Member Wilcox asked if he could go skinny dipping in these ponds (ha -ha). The Board discussed the SEIS and made minor housekeeping changes. Page 17 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -021: SEOR - Adoption of Findings Statement, Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center - Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -4 and 42 -1 -9.2 MOTION made by Susan Riha, seconded by Hollis Erb. 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 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/E1S 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 Page 18 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved 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, on March 3, 2009, accepted the Final S /EIS, dated February 23, 2009 and amended on March 3, 2009, for the proposed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, as complete; and 11. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has filed a Notice of Completion of Final S /EIS, issued the Final S /EIS, and distributed the Final S /EIS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, and 12. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, on March 24, 2009, has reviewed, discussed and revised the Findings Statement for the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency, on March 24, 2009, does hereby adopt the Findings Statement for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, and 2. That having considered the Draft and Final Supplemental EIS and the relevant documents incorporated therein, and having considered the written facts and conclusions in the Findings Statement relied upon to meet the requirements of Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law-and 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 through 617.12, the Town of Ithaca .Planning Board does hereby certify that:: 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; 2. Consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized to the Page 19 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None The motion declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, Agent. Chairperson Rod Howe opened the public hearing at 9:44 p.m., and asked if there were any questions. Board Member Wilcox noted that no construction on holidays was carried over from the Athletics and Events Center resolution to the proposed resolution. Board Member Erb stated that it is confusing about when the Army Corps of Engineers releases the wetlands. She asked if the Corps would not release it until they were satisfied. Mr. Kanter stated that the Corps would not normally release it from the monitory requirement until the criteria has been met. It depends on how the State and Federal governments are going to be handling their agencies and their economic conditions. He was not sure how this would affect the monitoring. Board Member Erb stated that this is in a Conservation Easement, so it is protected. The neighbors are buffered for protection. Mr. Kanter added that the Town will be the ultimate holder of the easement, and that the Town will have access and control over what happens to the property. The Board had further discussion on what was already discussed in the past. Chairperson Howe closed the public hearing at 9:48 p.m. (there was no one present besides the Board and the applicant). Page 20 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -022: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center — Wetland Mitigation Plan, Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -4 and 42 -1 -9.2 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded Fred Wilcox. 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 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 Page 21 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved 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, on March 3, 2009, accepted the Final S /EIS, dated February 23, 2009 and amended on March 3, 2009, for the proposed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, as complete; and 11. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has filed .a Notice of Completion of Final S /EIS, issued the Final S /EIS, and distributed the Final S /EIS to involved and interested agencies and the public, as required by 6 NYCRR Parts 617.9 and 617.12, and 12. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency, on March 24, 2009, did adopt the Findings Statement for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center project, and 13. The Planning Board, at Public Hearings held on February 3, 2009 and March 24, 2009, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans prepared by T.G. Miller; P.C., titled "Site Plan and Proposed Conservation Easements" (Sheet 10F1), dated 2106109, "Erosion & Sediment Control Plan" (Sheet C -201) and "Erosion & Sediment Control Plan & Details" (Sheet C -202), dated Dec. 8, 2008, and drawings contained within the "Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan — Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center — Ithaca, NY" dated December 4, 2008, prepared by LeCain Environmental Services, Inc., and other application material, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for 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, as shown on plans prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., titled "Site Plan and Proposed Conservation Easements" (Sheet 10F1), dated 2106109, "Erosion & Sediment Control Plan" (Sheet C -201), and "Erosion & Sediment Control Plan & Details" (Sheet C -202), dated Dec. 8, 2008, and drawings contained within the "Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan — Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center — Ithaca, NY" dated Page 22 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved December 4, 2008, prepared by LeCain Environmental Services, 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, including but not limited to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and b. review and approval of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by the Town Engineer, prior to any work occurring on site, and C. submission of one set of the revised 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 any work occurring on the site, and d. installation of multiple bird and bat houses around both wetland mitigation sites, to be shown on the revised site plan as indicated in condition "c" above, and e. submission of a conservation easement(s), as outlined in the description by the Finger Lakes Land Trust in the Final S /EIS, to include all areas referenced on drawing "Site Plan and Proposed Conservation Easements ", for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town and subject to acceptance by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, and submission to Planning Department of the County Clerk's filing receipt for the approved conservation easement, prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the Athletics and Events Center Building, and no construction is to occur during summer holiday weekends (Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day), and g. notification by Ithaca College to property owners adjacent to the Rich Road site regarding the construction schedule and long term vision for the mitigation wetland sites, and submission of a copy of said notification to the Town Planning Department, prior to any work occurring on the site, and h. the proposed measures and mitigations in the Supplemental EIS must be utilized for the following: construction traffic, dust, construction noise, soil erosion and sedimentation, protection of the existing wetlands and ground .and surface water flows. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Tally, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None Page 23 of 24 Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2009 Approved The motion declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes of March 3, 2009 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -023: Adoot Planning Board Minutes, Minutes of March 3,200 Motion made by George Conneman, seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from the meeting on March 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 March 3, 2009. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Howe, Conneman, Bosak, Riha, Talty, Erb, Wilcox. NAYS: None The motion declared to be carried unanimously. Other Business: The Board had a brief discussion on the next Planning Board meeting agenda. Adjournment Chairperson Howe adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Coates Whitmore First Deputy Town Clerk Page 24 of 24 saf�u'GU 6�Z' � z� C9 °.; �� -���.. ::s ��. " i y fir.. � -, ,� a � � � � ✓ �, �i x l°� �r ��� sir; z Its' a ✓�` -}lam 'Nfr €�� P 1 101 W r// MY 4m JQTQ. IM 9 Y t k4Y ¢¢ ,a W&A ROOM Jt � �_u ¢� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 24, 2009 A C,FND A 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Verizon Wireless Telecommunication Facility, 651 Five Mile Drive. 7:05 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of 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. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of the Final Scoping Document 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. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of adoption of the Findings Statement 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 considering the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithaca College Wetland Mitigation Plan. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, Agent. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, Agent. 7. Approval of Minutes: March 3, 2009. Other Business: 9. 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 24. 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 24, 2009, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Continuation of 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. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Associate Vice - President of Facilities, 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, March 16, 2009 Publish: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 jWednesday March #18 20091�T�HEITHgOW) Air Town of Ithaca Planning Board Sign -in Sheet Date: March 24, 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 Cby dn ,&At__�dz &Wile MAi i w 2- e, Cby dn 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 24, 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: March 16, 2009 Date of Publication: March 18, 2009 � Q0kc-c-, Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of March 2009. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 b