HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-2018-12-18Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
1
Planning and Development Board
Minutes
December 18, 2018
Board Members
Attending:
Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock; Jack Elliott; Mitch
Glass, Matthew Johnston; McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair;
Emily Petrina
Board Members Absent:
None
Board Vacancies: None
Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Division of Planning and Economic
Development
Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning
and Economic Development
Megan Wilson, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic
Development
Anne Redmond, Planner, Division of Planning and Economic
Development
Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and
Economic Development
Applicants Attending: 130 Coddington Road – Bed & Breakfast Special Permit
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
2 Fountain Place – Bed & Breakfast Special Permit
Jason Demarest, JK Demarest Architects
Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (draft FGEIS)
James Gensel for David Lubin, Unchained Properties
NCRE Cornell University – review FEAF Part III
Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape Architects
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
2
Falls Park Apartments (74 Units) 121-125 Lake Street by IFR
Development LLC – Public Hearing, Review of FEAF II and III
Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels, Landscape
Architects
Chris Hyde, Travis-Hyde Properties
815-817 N. Aurora Street – Two New Two-Family Dwellings –
Declaration of Lead Agency
Daniel Hirtler, Daniel Hirtler Architecture
Stavros Stavropoulos, Property Owner
504 S. Meadow Street Maguire Lincoln – Declaration of Lead
Agency
John Snyder, John Snyder Architects
Phil Maguire, Property Owner
Tim Maguire, Property Owner
West Hill Tiny Timbers – Sketch Plan
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
112-114 Summit Ave/ 238 Dryden Road – Sketch Plan
Noah Demarest, Stream Collaborative
Others Attending: Adam Walters, Phillips Lytle LLP
Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
He noted that the agenda is very full and asked all in attendance to keep their comments as
concise and relevant as possible. He said that in the interest of getting through all items in a
timely fashion, individual comments would be limited to 90 seconds, and he urged people to
submit comments in writing if they wanted to say more than the allotted time would allow.
1. Agenda Review
Deputy Director Nicholas said they should set a time to discuss the PUD/POZ Design Guidelines
document distributed earlier that month.
2. Special Order of Business – Presentation of the Greater Southside Plan
Senior Planner Megan Wilson appeared in front of the Board to make a presentation on the
Greater Southside Plan. She said that the Plan is now at a stage where they are going to begin the
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
3
approval process, so she is appearing to provide the Board with a brief overview of the document
and invite their feedback.
Wilson first defined the limits of the neighborhood, and explained that they have been working
with a committee of about 12-15 neighborhood residents meeting monthly to develop the plan.
She said they kicked off in the fall of 2016 with a resident survey of all or nearly all households
in the neighborhood. She said that after gathering information, they developed the plan itself,
with the first public draft available this past September. Following that was a public outreach
period where they appeared at several events and hosted neighborhood meetings to solicit
residents’ input and feedback. She said they also had an online survey which collected responses
as well.
Wilson said that the Southside Plan mimics the structure and organization of Plan Ithaca and
went on to review specifics of the Plan, including land use in the neighborhood, flooding, and
transportation, compatibility of new development to the existing neighborhood, and preserving
and enhancing natural resources. She said that key recommendations include: adopting a form-
based code to implement the future land-use map, including a minimum greenspace requirement;
work with the DEC to once-again establish a regular program of dredging for Six Mile Creek,
and dedicate funding to make that happen; formalize trails along Six Mile Creek, not paving
them, but having them established and maintained with a pervious surface, and making them
more accessible than they currently are; completing the neighborhood sidewalk network; and
working with the state to address traffic and transportation concerns along Meadow and Green
streets, particularly identifying improvements to make intersections safer for pedestrians and
cyclists.
Wilson said that at present, the committee is meeting this week and is expected to recommend
the plan for circulation so the Planning Board and others can begin reviewing it. She said the
plan now is for her to return to the January 22 meeting to answer any questions and possibly
have the Planning Board make recommendations to Common Council. Next, the plan would be
considered by the PEDC at their February 13 meeting, followed by additional circulation and
opportunity for public comment at the March 13 meeting, and if things go as planned, Common
Council would consider it for final approvals and adoption on April 3.
Wilson then invited questions from the Board.
Elliott asked why dredging was being proposed for Six Mile Creek, if it is meant to control
flooding, and if so, what about the disturbance of aquatic systems?
Wilson said yes, it’s to address flooding, particularly south of the creek. She said that flooding
has become worse as the dredging has become less and less frequent. She said that water does
come up from the storm sewers, but often the creek overruns the banks.
Elliott said that that may have much to do with increases in impervious surfaces (rather than
porous surfaces). He suggested that rather than simply make the channel deeper (a symptomatic
approach) they might find ways to treat the watershed differently so that there’s more absorption
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
4
and less of a time lag. He said Denver addressed their flooding concerns that way. He suggested
adding those strategies into the water management package, so it’s not just one thing.
Glass said that infill development continues to be a concern as projects come in front of the
Board. He asked if this document will help them determine if a particular infill project is in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood or not.
Wilson said that the City will be taking a look at infill City-wide soon, so the plan doesn’t make
specific recommendations for the Southside. She said that additional guidelines for infill might
be a part of the form-based code to be developed.
There being no further questions from the Board, they moved on to Privilege of the Floor.
3. Privilege of the Floor
Chair Lewis reminded members of the public that there would be four public hearings that
evening: 130 Coddington Road, 2 Fountain Place, 815 N. Aurora Street, and 370 Elmira Road.
He asked anyone wanting to speak on those projects please wait for the public hearing period. He
also said that due to the length of the agenda, speakers would be limited to 90 seconds each, and
the Privilege of the Floor period would be limited to 30 minutes total.
Chair Lewis then opened Privilege of the Floor.
Martin Hatch of 696 Snyder Hill Road said he has been a member of [the Dryden] Planning
Board for 15 years, and he raised a question about procedure, saying that the question of whether
the Board has followed legal regulations for the scheduling and announcing of a public meeting
has arisen occasionally with the Dryden Board, particularly if a controversial project is under
consideration. He said that he looked tonight’s meeting up on the City website a few days ago
and learned that the date and time had only been finalized late in the day on the 13th of
December. He said that he then looked up in the City Code the regulations for scheduling public
meetings and read from a portion of the code stating that public meetings should be announced 7
days in advance. He then asked if tonight’s meeting is a legally convened public meeting, and
raised the question of whether any resolutions passed might be subject to challenge if the
meeting was not legally convened and advertised in accordance with the City Code.
Joe Wilson of 75 Hunt Hill Road said that today’s planned negative declaration represents
several missed opportunities with regard to the NCRE. Cornell missed an opportunity to engage
with the community in a systematic review of the best ways to protect ourselves from climate
change and also missed an opportunity to engage with the community on the best ways to reduce
its methane emissions, and it missed an opportunity for a discussion of using the building
standards it applied to itself in New York City or to the standards in the City’s Green Building
Policy. He said the Board missed opportunities to call for unbiased information on the impacts of
Cornell’s emissions, or to get unbiased information on the full range of reasonable and practical
mitigation measures, and missed the opportunity to use SEQRA as it was designed as a tool to
protect and improve the environment while developing the community. We concerned citizens
seem to have missed our opportunity to put our comments to you in ways that would impact your
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
5
decision-making. While these missed opportunities will have serious negative consequences for
you, your children, and grandchildren in the next 20 to 50 years, the silver lining is that each
future development proposal that comes before you will create new chances for us all to do
better. He also submitted his comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these
minutes.
Regi Teasley of 201 Clliff Park Road spoke about the NCRE. She thanked the Board for their
service and thanked them for their time. She raised the question of whether the four Board
members employed by Cornell have a conflict of interest and asked them to recuse themselves.
She also submitted her comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these
minutes.
Marie McRae of 710 Irish Settlement Road, Dryden, spoke about the importance of
identifying and when possible mitigating climate change. She said that the Board has allowed
themselves to be hijacked by the applicant’s presentation of themselves as the sole expert on this
project. She said they have betrayed their responsibility. She said that she is appalled that they
might issue a negative declaration and urged them to require an EIS. She also submitted her
comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Elmer Ewing of 1520 Slaterville Road spoke about the NCRE. He said that the Board should
not depend entirely on the applicant-provided answers on questions relating to efficient use of
energy, especially not when there are independent experts are available. He raised the question of
bias. He said that LEED silver and gold certifications are insufficient and said that the closer a
structure gets to net zero the less the source of energy matters. He also submitted his comments
in writing, which are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Brian Eden of 147 N. Sunset Drive said that he had made a presentation to the PEDC three
years ago called “Building and Heating with the Climate in Mind.” He said that it featured a case
study of two dorms, one build to LEED, and the other to Passive House, and said the Passive
House dorm used 62 percent less energy than the LEED dorm and 74 percent less than code. He
then resubmitted the memo he submitted on October 22 containing this information. He said that
the Board does not seem to have looked at it. His written comments and supporting materials are
included as an addendum to these minutes.
Charles Geisler of 517 Ellis Hollow Corner Road spoke about the NCRE. He said that the
applicant is arguing that data-rich reporting is equivalent to an EIS, favoring a Neg Dec. He
urged the Board to issue a Pos Dec for the project. He also submitted his comments in writing,
which are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Jonathan Comstock of 114 Bald Hill School Road spoke about the NCRE. He read a statement
from Kathryn Russell requesting an EIS for the NCRE. Russell’s comments are included as an
addendum to these minutes.
Barbara Eden of 147 N. Sunset Drive spoke about the NCRE. She said that she was employed
by the University for many years and has been a long-term supporter of Cornell’s carbon
neutrality goal. She characterized the use of fracked gas as immoral and urged the Board to
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
6
require an EIS. She also submitted her comments in writing, which are included as an addendum
to these minutes.
Elisa Evett of 298 Bald Hill Road, Brooktondale, spoke about the NCRE. She referenced her
membership in climate change activist group Mothers Out Front and expressed concerns about
the environmental impacts of the project. She urged the Board to require an EIS. She said it
seems like the Board has been unreceptive to information provided them by well-informed
members of the public and that that suggests the Board members are not taking their role in this
process seriously enough. She also submitted her comments in writing, which are included as an
addendum to these minutes.
Tom Blecher of 313 Utica Street spoke about the NCRE arguing that an EIS is required. He
cited the DEC Handbook and referenced the IPCC’s global warming report. He submitted his
comments in writing, which are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Lisa Marshall of Horseheads said that since the Board last met 1,000 young people descended
on Washington D.C. asking for a green New Deal, and a 15-year-old addressed the entire world
from Poland, asking the world’s leaders to make real, systemic changes to address climate
change. She said also since the Board met last the US Climate Report was put out by 15 federal
agencies saying that this country is at great risk, our economy, our health, our future. She asked
the Board to require an EIS.
Brynn Schmitt of Danby said that she lived in Northern Pennsylvania for 30 years, raising her
children there, until she decided that it no longer felt safe to raise children and grandchildren
there. She said that a gas well went in a quarter mile up the hill and another went in a half mile
down the valley and their neighbors’ wells were being contaminated, and people’s animals and
children were getting sick, so they made the heartbreaking decision to move away from there.
She said that she thinks that what happens to our neighbors in Pennsylvania needs to be part of
their consideration.
Todd Bruer, Business Manager of IBEW Local 241 and President of the Tompkins Cortland
Building Trades Council, representing more than 3,500 local construction workers, said that the
Board has the opportunity to impact all of their families by adopting local labor language. He
said they already live here, volunteer here, raise families here, and they would love the
opportunity to be able to work locally. He said that looking at the projects around town, most use
out-of-town workers. He urged the Board to adopt a local labor policy and help keep local people
working. He said Monroe County has such a policy but noted that it has a waiver in it for when a
project needs more manpower than can be provided locally, you can bring in workers from out of
town. He said it seems like a simple way to keep revenue in-house.
Lisa Strayer of 361 Floral Avenue spoke about the proposed development and road extension
on Cherry Street, saying that the soil testing procedures will injure the trees there. She said it
seems like the Board is willing to approve projects to move forward without thinking about the
consequences.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
7
There being no more members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed privilege of
the floor.
4. Special Permits
A. Bed & Breakfast Special Permit for 130 Coddington Road by Noah Demarest of
Stream Collaborative. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public Hearing,
Determination of Environmental Significance, and Potential Consideration of
Special Permit Approval. The applicant is seeking a Special Permit for use of the
property as a homeowner occupied Bed and Breakfast. The property was originally
issued a Special Permit in 1998 for operation of the five bedroom home as a homeowner
occupied Bed and Breakfast; the Special Permit was not renewed in 2003, as required
by §325-9c(4)(g)[3], and has therefore expired. During a recent home inspection, it was
discovered the property had continued to operate absent a Special Permit, necessitating
a new Special Permit application. No physical alterations to the building or the site are
proposed. Issuance of a Special Permit is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca
Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental
Quality Review Act “(“SEQRA”).
Noah Demarest of Stream Collaborative appeared on behalf of property owner Denice Desouza.
He said that they are not proposing any changes to the property, but that the owner had had a bed
and breakfast special permit previously but they had let it lapse. He showed the Board a map
showing the property in context with the rest of the neighborhood, saying it is in a transitional
area (bordering IC) and that a road providing access to the water tower runs between this
property and one of the neighbors.
Demarest said that it exists as a seven-bedroom house with three bathrooms and two kitchens,
and that the configuration lends itself to this kind of use.
There being no questions from the Board, they next considered adoption of Lead Agency.
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency:
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a
Temporary Special Permit for a Bed & Breakfast Home at 130 Coddington Road, by Noah Demarest on
behalf of the owner, Denice K. DeSouza, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more
than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
8
not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site. The property is in the R-2a Zoning
District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code “a special permit for a bed and breakfast home
located in an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years”, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance, as the
permit has expired, and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of
which require environmental review, and now, therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution,
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by: Glass
Seconded by: Jones
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
On a motion by Glass, seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
William Epthimiatos of 134 Coddington Road said he is the next door neighbor and that the
access road mentioned is his driveway, and it’s not a public road. He said that he wants to
explain to the Board some of the issues with living next to a bed and breakfast. He said that they
have students on one side of them and the B&B on the other, and that while the students do make
noise a couple of times a year, they don’t really have any problems with them, but with the B&B,
they frequently have cars coming up their driveway and food deliveries at odd times. He said that
it’s more of an impact than you might think, and that they put up a fence to try to mitigate it. He
said that he thinks it’s important to ensure that Certificates of Compliance are up to date and that
their permits don’t lapse, as happened here.
Denice Desouza of 130 Coddington Road, said that the dates are a little off, and that they
opened the B&B in 2000, not 1998. She said that their parking is very well marked, though
guests do sometimes go up the neighbors’ driveway. She said that because it is an access road,
it’s sometimes confusing to guests, but that they have mitigated the issue by clearly marking
their parking area. She said that she had been looking into perhaps converting the property to
longer-term rentals, as B&Bs are on the decline with all the AirB&Bs in the area, but she
discovered that it would only be legal for three unrelated people. She said the house is very large
(around 4,000 SF) and that it wouldn’t be feasible to rent it that way, as the taxes wouldn’t be
covered. She said that the decision to continue to operate a B&B was a recent one.
There being no additional members of the public appearing to speak, on a motion by Elliott,
seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis closed the public hearing.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
9
Chair Lewis asked if the applicant wanted to answer any of the comments.
Demarest echoed what Desouza had said, saying that they had looked into several options, and
that the building would lend itself to being separated into four units, although that would require
fire separation and possibly installing sprinkler systems. He said that that could be a really good
solution long-term, but it would require a zoning change or a use variance (almost impossible to
obtain).
Demarest said he sympathizes with Billy and understands his concerns and is willing to look into
ways to mitigate the problems. He said that he thinks the way to address the situation long-term
would be to examine the zoning because the property is in a transitional area on the border
between residential to the east and non-residential (IC) to the west.
Jones asked if the lapse in the previous permit would have any impact on their decision.
Nicholas said that a special permit for this particular use isn’t renewed; it simply ends. Because it
is within a neighborhood, the Board has to look at impacts every five years, and the application
would have to be made whether it had lapsed or not.
Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance:
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a
Temporary Special Permit for a Bed & Breakfast Home at 130 Coddington Road, by Noah Demarest on
behalf of the owner, Denice K. DeSouza, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more
than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is
not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site. The property is in the R-2a Zoning
District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code “a special permit for a bed and breakfast home
located in an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years”, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Review Ordinance, as the
permit has expired, and an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, both of
which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on December 18, 2018
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency did, on December 18, 2018, review and accept as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 2, prepared
by Planning staff, and other application materials prepared by the applicant, now, therefore be it,
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
10
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project
will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for the purposes of
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Johnston
Seconded by: Petrina
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Adopted Resolution for a Temporary Special Permit Approval:
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a
Temporary Special Permit for a Bed & Breakfast Home at 130 Coddington Road, by Noah Demarest on
behalf of the owner, Denice K. DeSouza, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is seeking a temporary special permit for use of the property as a home-owner
occupied bed and breakfast, as required by § 325-9C(1)(q) of the City Code, with no proposed physical
alternations to the building or the site, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more
than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is
not proposing any physical alternations to the building or the site. The property is in the R-2a Zoning
District in which the use is allowed by Special Permit, and
WHEREAS: In accordance with City Code, a bed and breakfast home is defined as follows: An owner-
managed occupation conducted by the owner-occupant of a one- or two-family home that provides one to
four rooms for paying guests on an overnight basis. Guest occupancy periods shall not exceed 21
consecutive days. The occupancy of such a bed-and-breakfast home is limited to two persons or one family
per lodging unit or guest room, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with §325-9 of the City Code “a special permit for a bed and breakfast home
located in an R-2 Zone shall expire after a period of five years”, and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under both the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review
Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and property posted in accordance with §325-40B(2)(e) of the City
of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: following proper notice to the public, a public hearing was held by the Board on December
18, 2018, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
11
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on December 18, 2018,
reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff and application materials prepared by the applicant, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did,
on December 18, 2018 make a negative declaration of environmental significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board has made the following findings of fact:
1. The applicant is the owner of the land and resides on the premises;
2. The proposal is for a bed & breakfast home that would be owner occupied and managed;
3. The applicant proposes to rent out no more than three bedrooms as bed and breakfast rooms, to be
rented on a daily basis;
4. The property was legally allowed as a bed and breakfast home from 1998-2003;
5. There is no evidence of any existing bed and breakfast homes within 500 feet of the property;
6. The property has adequate parking to serve a bed and breakfast home (7 spaces);
7. A neighbor expressed concern regarding traffic circulation (e.g., food service deliveries) and
parking on the property, which is to be mitigated through appropriate and sustained signage;
8. The location and size of the use, the size of the site and the location of the site with respect to the
existing or future streets giving access to it are in harmony with the existing or intended character
of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and
buildings and will not impair the enjoyment or value thereof; and
9. Proposed operations in connection with the bed and breakfast home will not produce
objectionable noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, or light impacts; and
10. The applicant has read, understands and concurs with the proposed conditions;
RESOLVED: that the subject application is APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall continue to reside in and manage the home as a bed and breakfast home, as
permitted by Special Permit in the R-2 zoning district and pursuant to §325-9 of the City of Ithaca
Code;
2. No cooking facilities shall be provided in the individual guest rooms;
3. Food service shall be limited to guests and occupants taking lodging in the bed-and-breakfast
home;
4. The applicant shall display and maintain clearly visible signage to indicate the location of access
to and parking on the premises;
5. The special permit shall expire after a period of five years. All requirements pertaining to the
application for and granting of a first-time special permit for a bed and breakfast home shall apply
to the application for a renewed special permit, including the notification procedures set forth in
§325-40.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Jones
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
12
B. Bed & Breakfast Home Special Permit for 2 Fountain Place by Jason K
Demarest of JK Demarest Architects. Declaration of Lead Agency, Public
Hearing, Determination of Environmental Significance, and Potential
Consideration of Special Permit Approval. The applicant is seeking a Special Permit
to operate the existing 4,492 SF nine (9) bedroom residence located at 2 Fountain Place
as a Bed and Breakfast Home. The owner is proposing to utilize four (4) of the nine (9)
bedrooms as guest bedrooms for a period not to exceed 21 consecutive days, with a
fifth bedroom utilized for home-owner occupancy. Guest occupancy will be limited to
two persons or one family per guestroom. No exterior modifications are proposed to
the existing home to establish the B&B use, and the existing house is compatible with
the character of the neighborhood. Existing parking for seven (7) vehicles exists in the
turnaround off Willets Place. The applicant does not propose cooking facilities in the
guestrooms, and food service is to be limited to guests of the B&B. No other B&B
Homes exist within 500 feet of the property. One sign that is five (5) SF maximum in
area and not self-illuminated will be installed in compliance with Chapter 272 of the
City Code, “Signs.”
Jason Demarest of JK Demarest Architects appeared on behalf of prospective property owners
Ryan and Ashley Zimmerman. Demarest said the Zimmermans saw the house at 2 Fountain
Place shortly after graduating college and always wanted to buy it if it ever came on the market.
He said that that finally happened last spring and that they are currently in the process of buying
the property from IC, pending approval of a special permit to operate a B&B Home at the
address. He explained that they had previously sought a use variance to run a B&B Inn, but after
hearing concerns from neighbors and learning about the difficulty of obtaining that variance,
they have modified their plans. He said that a B&B Home is a use as of right but it requires a
special permit.
Glass asked applicants if they had seen the petition circulated via email earlier in the day.
Applicants said they had.
Cornish said there were hard copies provided to the Board of a letter she had received from
Richard John earlier that day as well, which is included as an addendum to these minutes.
Blalock asked for clarification on the number of rooms in each building and how many would be
used for the B&B.
Demarest said the proposal is to use four of the nine bedrooms in 2 Fountain Place for the B&B.
He said 2 Willetts Place is currently configured into spaces for three separate guests, though
zoning would allow it to be used for a two-family home, so after some reconfiguration, that is
how the Zimmermans would intend to rent it – as two apartments, one two-bedroom and one
one-bedroom, to long-term tenants, not as part of the B&B.
Jones asked if it is correct that there will be no site changes other than the addition of a new sign.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
13
Demarest said that is correct, that they are allowed one sign of 5 SF. He said it is a home, and
everything will function like a home.
Adopted Resolution for Declaration of Lead Agency:
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Jones:
WHEREAS: 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law and Chapter 176.6 of the
City Code, Environmental Quality Review, require that a lead agency be established for conducting
environmental review of projects, in accordance with local and state environmental law, and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for actions governed by local environmental review, the lead agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
action, and
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a
Temporary Special Permit for a bed & breakfast home at 2 Fountain Place, by Jason K. Demarest, applicant
for the owner, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, a bed and breakfast home is defined as follows: An owner-
managed occupation conducted by the owner-occupant of a one- or two-family home that provides one to
four rooms for paying guests on an overnight basis. Guest occupancy periods shall not exceed 21
consecutive days. The occupancy of such a bed-and-breakfast home is limited to two persons or one family
per lodging unit or guest room, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more
than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is
not proposing any physical alterations to the building or the site. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District
in which the use is allowed by Special Permit and also in the East Hill Local Historic District, and
WHEREAS: This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) §176.7 B. (1) (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 (11)
as it is located in the Local East Hill Historic District, both of which require environmental review, and
now, therefore be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, does, by way of this resolution,
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Jones
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
Public Hearing
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
14
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Glass, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
Betsy Magré of 413 E. Buffalo Street spoke about several concerns she had regarding the
proposed use of the property as a B&B Home. First, she expressed life-safety concerns, saying
that vehicle access is via a small lane, which seems inadequate to accommodate fire trucks,
delivery trucks, City services trucks, and others. Her second item of concern was neighborhood
character. She said that the intent of R2-a zoning is to maintain a residential character with single
and two-family homes. She said there’s a fundamental difference between people who are
coming through the area for entertainment versus people who are connected to the neighborhood
and have some ownership. She said the Argos Inn and Argos Warehouse space have been putting
pressure on the residential nature of the neighborhood and that this proposal would increase that
pressure. She also expressed concerns surrounding monitoring of the property to ensure the
owners will comply with the rules for B&B homes. She also submitted comments in writing,
which are included as an addendum to these minutes.
Cynthia Livermore of 3 Fountain Place spoke in opposition to granting the special permit. She
submitted a petition signed by more than 30 neighbors who were also opposed, which is included
as an addendum to these minutes.
Vincent Mulcahy of 3 Fountain Place submitted written comments from neighbor Mark Haag
(included as an addendum to these minutes). He spoke against the proposed B&B, saying that the
modified proposal submitted makes him question if the claims made in the first application were
false. He characterized this as a trust problem. He also submitted written comments which are
included as an addendum to these minutes.
Barry Chester of 313 E. Buffalo Street spoke in opposition to granting the Special Permit. He
said he and his wife moved to their home 13 years ago because they wanted to live in a beautiful
historic house and that they have invested heavily in the property. He said that he finds the
silence of the proposal on what happens to the other bedrooms very curious. He said he disagrees
that it will be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. He said that if you look at it
cumulatively, lower East Hill has been under attack from development coming from the south,
and to have more coming from the north feels like an assault. He said it feels like something they
shouldn’t have to bear and that he hopes the Board would take these issues into consideration.
Ray Schlather, lawyer representing Vincent Mucahy, Cynthia Livermore and other neighbors,
spoke about fire safety concerns. He said that the hydrant is right next to the house at 2 Willetts,
and trucks would need access. He also said that the drawing submitted omits deeded parking
spaces along Willetts Place. He said that the fire department requires a minimum of 14 feet but
the deeded parking spots narrow the road to 10 to 12 feet, which does not comply with current
fire regulations. He said that the Fire Chief also made it clear with the BZA application that he
would not allow any parking on the Fountain Place portion, which is where the signage and
entrance is. He said it seems likely that people may pull in there, unload and then stay there in
violation of fire code because they simply won’t feel like going back out on Buffalo to enter via
Willetts and pull around the back. He said these are issues the applicant has created, and he also
raised the question of trust now that they are making a revised application.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
15
There being no more members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public
Hearing on a motion by Elliott, seconded by Petrina.
Chair Lewis asked the applicant if they wanted to address any of the comments received from the
public.
Demarest said that with respect to service vehicles, he does not think either home will receive an
increase in the number of service vehicles relative to how many were coming and going when
the property was in use by IC as the President’s residence. He said one of the letters mentioned
truck access and said that the garbage truck driver realized long ago that the best way to access
Willets is to back in from Buffalo, and that’s an existing condition. He said having a B&B in an
historic area isn’t creating the condition; it’s just that private lanes and small roads created long
ago simply do not meet current code requirements. He said he doesn’t think renting out four
rooms will change service requirements and that they are allowed to do so as a matter of right,
which is why they changed the proposal.
Demarest said that they would not be putting on special events, and the prospective buyers have
made peace with that.
Demarest also said that this is a five-year permit, and that they will be back in five years to
renew, and neighbors can voice their concerns at that time if the Zimmermans prove not to be
good neighbors. He said they sent a letter to their neighbors to try to offer some encouragement
of that.
Demarest also said that if you look at the zoning, there are a number of uses permitted, such as
running a professional business out of a house, and many cars could come and go as a result. He
said that it’s also not true that public concerns are a principal factor to deny, and quoted Zoning
Sec. 325-9-D which says you need to find a substantial negative impact, justified with evidence,
to deny.
He said that they have changed their application because after making an attempt to obtain a use
variance, it seems to be virtually impossible to obtain one, even though it is a right. He said that
they hit roadblocks and they pivoted, and that it’s all part of a purchase process. He said that they
are trying to figure out what will work in the neighborhood, for everybody, and they settled on a
permitted use. He said there are many permitted uses within the zone, and that what’s most
important is being a good neighbor, and that potential issue is being heard loud and clear.
With respect to the other four bedrooms, Demarest said that the Zimmermans have four children,
and that initially, the proposal was to make it an Inn and live elsewhere, but now with it being a
B&B home, they and their children would all live there. The plans have changed.
Demarest said that as for fire truck access, he did an analysis of Fountain Place, and there is no
way a fire truck would ever be able to turn around there. The only way they can get in there is to
drive in and back out, which is an existing condition and not being exacerbated by this use.
Chair Lewis asked if the Board members had any additional questions or comments.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
16
Elliott asked if the application had been reviewed by the Fire Department.
Nicholas said that it had been sent to them, but they had not weighed in.
Elliott said he would feel better if the Fire Chief gave his approval.
Jones agreed and asked if the ILPC or Historic Preservation Planner had weighed in.
Nicholas said that she didn’t think it was an ILPC issue because they are not proposing any
changes to the exterior of the property.
Glass asked for clarification on the use of 2 Willetts.
Demarest said that they will do some conversion work (turning kitchenettes into full kitchens)
and rent it out as two apartments, a two-bedroom and a one-bedroom.
Blalock said that he’s spent eight years on the Board, but the first special permit application
they’ve considered was a half an hour ago. He asked for clarification on Sec. 325-9.C.1.q in
terms of what criteria they have to consider. He asked if fire access is a hurdle they have to clear.
Jones consulted the code and said it is mostly about not changing the exterior, that it has to be
owner-occupied, they can’t have a restaurant, and there are limits on signage.
Blalock said that if that is all, then he doesn’t see a problem.
Jones said that two adults living with four children in a home and trying to make a business out
of it doesn’t sound out of line.
The applicant noted that the problem of deeded parking spots would be the same as if any of the
neighbors hosted a dinner party and their guests unknowingly parked in a neighbor’s reserved
spot. It could be solved with pavement markings or something similar to ensure reserved spots
are not used by others.
Jones said that the only difference is that neighbors might host a dinner party once or twice a
year, but the turnover at a B&B could be much greater than that, so she can appreciate that as a
concern.
Blalock said he doesn’t see any reason why the special permit shouldn’t be granted and asked if
anyone else sees conditions being violated by the application.
Petrina cited item number 2, saying that the public hearing should be a principal factor. She said
she’s feeling uncomfortable voting in favor without understanding the full impact on the parking.
She said rideshare could be a factor and that it could lead to additional cars coming and not really
knowing where they are going. She said that they have received a petition signed by 30 of the
neighbors in opposition.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
17
Jones said she wonders if maybe some of the neighbors don’t have the full picture of the
proposal. She asked the applicants if they had met with the neighbors.
Applicants said no.
Jones urged them to reach out to the neighbors.
After some additional discussion, Lewis asked around the table how the other members want to
proceed.
Johnston said more information is always a good thing and he echoed Jones’ comments about
reaching out to neighbors, but he said he is mostly comfortable with approval.
Elliott said that after his recent house fire he would like to see Fire Chief Parsons sign off on the
proposal.
Lewis said he would approve, noting that neighborhood sentiment seems to be opposed, but that
sentiment and content are not the same thing. He said that the straw poll seems to indicate they
move forward.
Petrina asked if the permit is denied if the applicant return at a later date.
Director Cornish said once it’s denied, it’s denied, unless they come back with a different
proposal.
Blalock asked if asking Fire Chief Parsons to sign off on the parking plan could be a condition of
approval.
Cornish said yes.
Jones expressed support for the idea, and suggested that they address item no. 2 by inserting
language about applicant communicating with neighbors (though she said she doesn’t see tying
that to any deliverable).
After some additional discussion, it was determined that they could approve the permit with the
condition that the Fire Chief review it and determine that the B&B home would not exacerbate
an existing condition, but if he finds it would, the matter returns to the Board.
Cornish told the applicants that it would have been helpful if they had shown the property in
context, as with a Google Earth photo.
Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Johnston:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
18
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for a
Temporary Special Permit for a bed & breakfast home at 2 Fountain Place, by Jason K Demarest, applicant
for the owner, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, a bed and breakfast home is defined as follows: An owner-
managed occupation conducted by the owner-occupant of a one- or two-family home that provides one to
four rooms for paying guests on an overnight basis. Guest occupancy periods shall not exceed 21
consecutive days. The occupancy of such a bed-and-breakfast home is limited to two persons or one family
per lodging unit or guest room, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more
than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is
not proposing any physical alterations to the building or the site. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District
in which the use is allowed by Special Permit and also in the East Hill Local Historic District, and
WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) §176.7 B. (1) (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4
(11) as it is located in the Local East Hill Historic District, both of which require environmental review,
and
WHEREAS: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being that local agency which has
primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did, on December 18, 2018
declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the proposed project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board acting as lead agency in environmental review, did on December 18, 2018,
review and accept as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant,
and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff and application materials provided by the applicant, now, therefore
be it,
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project
will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for the purposes of
Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of
the State Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Johnston
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
After a motion from Petrina, a brief discussion of amendments to the resolution followed.
Adopted Resolution for a Temporary Special Permit Approval:
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Blalock:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
19
WHEREAS: The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has received a Temporary Special Permit
application for a bed and breakfast home at 2 Fountain Place, by Jason K. Demarest, applicant for the
owner, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is seeking a temporary special permit for use of the property as a home-owner
occupied bed and breakfast, as required by § 325-9C(1)(q) of the City Code, with no proposed physical
alternations to the building or the site, and
WHEREAS: in accordance with City Code, a bed and breakfast home is defined as follows: An owner-
managed occupation conducted by the owner-occupant of a one- or two-family home that provides one to
four rooms for paying guests on an overnight basis. Guest occupancy periods shall not exceed 21
consecutive days. The occupancy of such a bed-and-breakfast home is limited to two persons or one family
per lodging unit or guest room, and
WHEREAS: the applicant is proposing to use the property as a bed and breakfast home in which no more
than four rooms would be rented. The applicant has sufficient parking on site for the proposed use and is
not proposing any physical alterations to the building or the site. The project is in the R-2a Zoning District
in which the use is allowed by Special Permit and also in the East Hill Local
WHEREAS: This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) §176.7 B. (1) (h) [4] and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 (11)
as it is located in the Local East Hill Historic District, both of which require environmental review, and
WHEREAS: legal notice was published and properly posted in accordance with §325-40B(2)(e) of the City
of Ithaca Code, and
WHEREAS: following proper notice to the public, a public hearing was held by the Board on December
18, 2018, and
WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Department of Sustainability and Planning and the City of Ithaca Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission has been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed
project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on December 18, 2018,
reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Part 2, prepared by Planning Staff and application materials provided by the applicant, and
WHEREAS: the Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did,
on December 18, 2018 make a negative declaration of environmental significance, and
WHEREAS: the Board has made the following findings of fact:
11. The applicant is to be the owner of the land and will reside on the premises;
12. The proposal is for a bed & breakfast home that would be owner occupied and managed;
13. The applicant proposes to rent out no more than four bedrooms as bed and breakfast rooms, to be
rented on a daily basis;
14. There is no evidence of any existing bed and breakfast homes within 500 feet of the property;
15. The property has adequate parking to serve a bed and breakfast home;
16. Public comment has been considered as a principal factor in the decision;
17. The location and size of the use, the size of the site and the location of the site with respect to the
existing or future streets giving access to it are in harmony with the existing or intended character
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
20
of the neighborhood and will not discourage the appropriate development of adjacent land and
buildings and will not impair the enjoyment or value thereof; and
18. Proposed operations in connection with the bed and breakfast home will not produce
objectionable noise, fumes, increased vehicular traffic or parking demand, or light impacts; and
19. The applicant has read, understands and concurs with the proposed conditions;
RESOLVED: that the subject application is APPROVED with the following conditions:
6. The applicant shall reside in and manage the home as a bed and breakfast home, as permitted by
Special Permit in the R-2 zoning district and pursuant to §325-9 of the City of Ithaca Code;
7. No cooking facilities shall be provided in the individual guest rooms;
8. Food service shall be limited to guests and occupants taking lodging in the bed-and-breakfast
home;
9. No special events are to be held on the premises;
10. Adequate parking for the facility shall be maintained;
11. The Ithaca Fire Department shall review the application and determine whether or not the
proposed use exacerbates current access and safety issues. The proposed bed and breakfast home
shall not commence in use until the Ithaca Fire Department determines there are no additional
safety or access concerns; and
12. The special permit shall expire after a period of five years. All requirements pertaining to the
application for and granting of a first-time special permit for a bed and breakfast home shall apply
to the application for a renewed special permit, including the notification procedures set forth in
§325-40.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Blalock
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis
Against: Petrina
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
5. Site Plan Review
A. Chain Works District Redevelopment Plan (FGEIS), 620 S. Aurora St. by Jamie
Gensel for David Lubin of Unchained Properties. Review FGEIS & Town
Comments – No Action. The proposed Chain Works District seeks to redevelop and
rehabilitate the +/-800,000 sf former Morse Chain/Emerson Power Transmission
facility, located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal
boundary. The applicant has applied for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
development of a mixed-use district, which includes residential, commercial, office,
and manufacturing. The site’s redevelopment would bridge South Hill and Downtown
Ithaca, the Town and the City of Ithaca, by providing multiple intermodal access routes
including a highly-desired trail connection. The project will be completed in multiple
phases over a period of several years with the initial phases involving the
redevelopment of the existing structures. Current redevelopment of this property will
focus on retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure for new uses. Using the
existing structures, residential, commercial, studio workspaces, and office development
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
21
are proposed to be predominantly within the City of Ithaca, while manufacturing will
be within both the Town and City of Ithaca.
Jamie Gensel of Fagan Engineers appeared on behalf of applicant David Lubin (Unchained
Properties) to present updated materials from the draft FGEIS, including comments from the
Town, and answer Board questions.
Adam Walters of Phillips Lytle LLP, counsel to the Board, reviewed the process with the Board,
saying that they would be working through the draft FGEIS with the end goal of adopting the
FGEIS. He said the applicant prepared the DGEIS four years ago and that it was reviewed and
public comments were accepted. He said that the draft FGEIS is a response to the comments
received and reflects changes that need to be made as a result of the comments. He also said that
the materials they received today include comments on the draft FGEIS from the Town Board.
Chair Lewis invited questions and comments from the Board.
Blalock said that if the BPW meeting hadn’t been scheduled at the same time as the Planning
Board, he would be downstairs discussing the sidewalk expansion along Aurora Street/96 B. He
asked if there was coordination between the City, the Town, and IC to determine how the
sidewalks would connect.
Gensel said their conceptual site layout plans have the sidewalk on their side of the street, which
was based on walkability both on 96B and through the site.
Cornish said she wasn’t sure if plans were finalized, but she knew IC and the City Engineers
were talking and had alignments in mind.
Walters said that the EIS is a higher-level document, but the rubber really meets the road on an
issue like that when they come back for final site plan review on the project. He said that that is
when the Board can say they have to address the issue or the plan won’t be approved, so it’s in
the applicant’s interest to be sure they are coordinating that.
Jones said that the Town comments indicated there was an inconsistency in the number of
mitigations and asked where that occurred.
Gensel said it was in the groundwater contamination line, 3-23, and what happened is that at
some point, one of the six items listed under environmental got dropped. That group continues
throughout the document and is italicized, as it comes right out of the DEC document. He said
that the DEC document itself has changed a number of times, so they need to make sure they are
using the most up-to-date version. He said they have asked the environmental attorney to double
check it and make sure it is correct throughout.
Jones said that’s good and that she hopes all of those items match the groundwater sections.
Gensel said they know they need to have the attorney review sections 3-25, 3.30, 3-31, and 3-36.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
22
Glass asked about a sentence on page 5-52 that reads, “The lead agency understands that
Emerson shall be performing a feasibility study to identify remedial methods to address the
barium and cyanide impacts in the groundwater.” Glass asked if that is an outstanding item that
the Board needs to be tracking.
Gensel said that it is an outstanding item that DEC will approve, and when it is finished, they
will add it to the draft FEIS. He said that it is an item that is somewhat outside the Board’s
review, but they know they will need to have it. He said it’s referenced in the EIS so it’s clear
that they are tracking it. Glass asked if there are other items they should be tracking.
Nicholas said yes, and that they would be getting a list.
Walters said that the Board will be tracking most of the items on the environmental side. He said
that the DEC is responsible for establishing acceptable remedial levels for the site, but as SEQR
lead agency, it’s the Board’s responsibility to look at it, acknowledge it, and think about it. He
said that when the EIS/DEIS came out, they were much earlier on in the DEC process, so they
had included a long list of all the things that would happen. Much of that has begun to move
forward, so the updated text reflects where they are now. When they come back for individual
site plan review, you will have a list of things that need to be done and resolved with the DEC
before the Board will issue final approvals. This is designed to ensure that to the extent
remediation is required, it is done, and the DEC has signed off.
Nicholas said they would be getting the list as part of the findings.
Walters said that’s the next thing they will do. He said the applicant will be compiling one, and
then he and staff would review and revise it, with the goal of having one for the Board within the
next few weeks. He said that that is the most important document that will come out of this
process because it will guide the Board down the road every time a site plan comes in for review.
He said this is a large project, and there are going to be a lot of individual site plans coming in
down the road, and for all of them, you’re going to go back to the findings statement to make
sure the mitigation conditions have been addressed, and there are no impacts that haven’t been
looked at. If there are, it actually opens up a new environmental review.
Elliott asked about the portion that Emerson will be retaining.
Gensel said, yes, OU-1.
Elliott said yes, and asked if they are hoping there’s no migration from that site to the rest.
Walters said that’s a groundwater plume, so that’s not limited to the reservoir; it travels. He said
that there’s mitigation planned to deal with the issue. It’s not that we’re hoping it doesn’t move;
it will. They’ve been pumping and treating there since the late ‘80s and will continue to do so for
a long time.
Elliot asked if that would be something they would be monitoring as well.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
23
Gensel said yes, and that the subdivision is to address that.
Petrina asked about the traffic study. She said it looks like current conditions are described and
then Phase I and Phase II are based on that. She asked they would be given an opportunity to
revisit the counts again after Phase I is completed.
Gensel said that reviewing the traffic counts after each phase is one of the proposed mitigations.
He said trip generation rates can be an inexact science, so they like to check to see how they are
doing as they go.
Walters said that it is spelled out that they have to do a revised count once Phase I comes on line.
Gensel said they will typically produce a table showing projected and actual counts.
Walters said a big part of the mitigation is TDM, so there will be constant updates on TDM
implementation, and if they find it’s not working as proposed, they will have to beef it up.
Gensel noted that one Town Planning Board member caught a typo “southbound” instead
“northbound” was used in a sentence. He said it was a needle in a haystack, and said it had been
corrected.
Chair Lewis asked if there were any more questions or concerns.
Glass asked about next steps.
Staff said that at the next few meetings they would probably start reviewing the findings.
Glass asked about the review of the PUD-PDZ guidelines.
Nicholas said the PUD guidelines are ready for review now, but that she would have to find out
when the Town PDZ would be ready for review.
Walters said that they will want the PUD-PDZ portions to be largely complete before they
complete the FGEIS because a lot of what’s inside depends on how the design guidelines are
drafted, and if that changes radically, they would have to re-open the environmental review,
which they don’t want to do.
Jones asked how closely Common Council has been following the findings.
Nicholas said they are working on the PUD and the Design Guidelines, and that the Planning
Board will be helping them with the findings. She said that the Board would inform them of their
findings, there will be opportunities for Council to review, and Council will have to adopt the
findings before the PUD.
Chair Lewis next asked if the Board is ready to look at the PUD.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
24
Nicholas said that they last saw the document last year around this time and made a lot of
changes. Since then, Common Council has made a number of additional changes: refining the
Use Tables to make them clearer, looking closely at the building heights and what those would
mean for buildings with frontage along Aurora Street, creating an additional zone. She said the
Board received the updated document which went out for circulation last month. She asked if
they had had the chance to look at it.
Jones said not as closely as she would like to and others agreed.
Nicholas said they could look at it next month.
Board members agreed.
Chair Lewis asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Board. There were
none.
B. North Campus Residential Expansion (NCRE) at Cornell University Campusby
Trowbridge Wolf Michaels for Cornell University. Determination of
Environmental Significance The applicant proposes to construct two residential
complexes (one for sophomores and the other for freshmen) on two sites on North
Campus. The sophomore site will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds
and associated program space totaling 299,900 SF and a 59,700 SF, 1,200-seat, dining
facility. The sophomore site is mainly in the City of Ithaca with a small portion in the
Village of Cayuga Heights; however, all buildings are in the City. The freshman site
will have three new residential buildings (each spanning the City and Town line) with
a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated program space – 223,400 of
which is in the City, and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be
between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The project is in three zoning
districts: the U-I zoning district in the City in which the proposed five stories and 55
feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential District (LDR) in the Town which allows
for the proposed two-story residence halls (with a special permit); and the Multiple
Housing District within Cayuga Heights in which no buildings are proposed. This has
been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii).
Kim Michaels and Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects appeared
in front of the Board to answer questions.
The Board reviewed Part III of the FEAF.
Nicholas reviewed the last two outstanding items requested by the Board at the last meeting. On
page 2 was an item asking for clarification on where materials (soil) will be hauled.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
25
Michaels asked Nicholas if she had received an email answering that.
Nicholas said no.
Michaels said that at this point they do not know where the spoils/fill will end up going, but the
construction route outlined in the SEQR document will take it to Route 13, and from there it can
go anywhere. She said that wherever it goes will be somewhere it can be disposed of properly.
From a perspective of potential significant adverse environmental impacts, she said she doesn’t
think knowing the exact location of where the material will go is of concern.
Elliott said that when the north wing of Martha Van Rensselaer Hall was demolished, the fill was
put into a wetland, and it was legal. He said he is sure they got the permits. He said he would
rather see any fill from this project go somewhere where it isn’t adversely affecting a wetland.
He said he thinks it is something you have to be vigilant about and can’t just leave it up to the
subcontractor. If you want it done a certain way, you have to specify. He said that maybe they
can put language into their contracts that putting it onto a wetland area is not acceptable, just as
you can specify certain things to comply with LEED (such as buying materials within 500 miles
of the jobsite). He said that a wetland is considered a public amenity and that if they are going
for LEED Gold they are not supposed to do anything to adversely affect a public amenity.
Michaels said that his suggestions sound sensible but she is trying to figure out how to
implement them given where they are currently in the process.
Jones suggested including some language in the Part III FEAF.
Walters said that as a Type I action, they can’t put conditions on the Neg Dec, so it is up to the
applicant to propose a mitigation. He said that the applicant can commit to no disposal of any
materials in wetlands or other sensitive areas.
Both applicants and Board members expressed support.
Board and staff next raised the one remaining outstanding item regarding number of jobs created
by the project.
Michaels said that after project completion, the project is expected to create 85 to 110 jobs.
Chair Lewis asked Nicholas if there was anything else she wanted to discuss.
Nicholas said those were the only items outstanding on the Part III.
Lewis asked the Board if anyone had any questions or comments. He then asked if everyone was
comfortable with the document thus far. Jones, Petrina, Blalock, Johnston, and Glass indicated
that they are.
Elliott, when asked, said that he has studied sustainable building for 20 years, and while he
sympathizes deeply with many of the sentiments members of the public have expressed
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
26
regarding the project, he does not think they understand that they are limited in what they can do
as a Board. He said that if a project is legal by the decree of Common Council, the Board cannot
stop it. He said that if you want to make a difference in what is legally allowed, you have to go to
Common Council and get them to change the rules. He said as a member of the faculty senate, he
voted in favor of Cornell dis-investing in fossil fuels. He said he has been aware of these issues
for more than 20 years, longer than they have been on many people’s radar, and it’s frustrating
when they get mail from the public saying that the Board members don’t know what they’re
talking about. He said he is serving on the Board working within the parameters of what he is
allowed to do.
Chair Lewis said that the public had raised the question of recusals and Elliott had mentioned his
work at Cornell. He asked Walters to explain the issue of recusals to make sure nobody is doing
something they shouldn’t be.
Walters said the rules are very clear. Board members must decide things impartially and fairly,
and if any of the members (of the four employed by Cornell) feels their employment impairs
their ability to fairly hear the application and make a decision, they absolutely have an obligation
to recuse themselves.
Chair Lewis asked if anyone wanted to recuse themselves.
No one did.
Nicholas then said the applicant had submitted a few suggested edits/corrections to the Part III.
Michaels said that she anticipated a high level of scrutiny of the document and asked the Chair if
it would be okay if she reviewed a few proposed changes.
Chair Lewis said yes.
Michaels said that the document uses the word “mitigations” in a conversational way throughout,
but noted that for an EIS, the term has a very specific legal meaning and asked if they might
insert a sentence at the beginning to clarify that [the word is being used conversationally and not
in the legal sense].
Walters said that it’s most important to understand that they can’t impose conditions on a Type I
action (a conditioned Neg Dec), so the mitigations being discussed are being proposed by the
applicant, as part of an open process. He said that for Part II of the EAF, a number of boxes had
been checked indicating potentially large impacts, and said that then the question for Part III is:
Have those impacts been mitigated by proposed changes? He said that he doesn’t have a problem
with the language proposed by the applicant which indicates that “mitigations” refers to
“Mitigations proposed by the applicant.”
Chair Lewis asked if the Board members were okay with the added language.
No one objected.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
27
Applicant then went on to indicate factual errors in the Part III and reviewed minor changes to
the language with the Board. Board approved minor edits suggested with no objections.
Before the Neg Dec was adopted, Chair Lewis asked if the Board members had any comments.
Jones said that she stands by her previous comments and agrees with what Elliott had said
earlier. She said she understands the public comments and the need for stricter energy codes, and
that the Board members are taking it upon themselves to draft a memo to Common Council and
other Boards within the City. She asked that the public please have faith that they are doing their
job. She said that their hands are somewhat tied by the requirements of SEQR. She said that
some of the Board members had done some research and learned that the American Academy for
an Energy Efficient Economy has developed a scorecard for cities based on their energy policies.
She said Boston is ranked number one, and one of the reasons is that they have adopted
Massachusetts’ Stretch Code that requires all buildings operate at 20 percent better than the state
energy base code. She said that the NCRE buildings are proposed to operate at 30 percent better
than the New York energy base code, so she said she feels comfortable with this project as it
stands, although uncomfortable in general with the lack of greater energy standards for the City.
She said they are doing the best that they can.
Johnston said that he is an employee of Cornell, and that he supports this project because he
thinks that it will have many social and economic benefits to both the University and the City.
He said it does not go as far as he might like environmentally, that he would like it to be built to
Passive House standards and get as close to Net Zero as possible. For those members of the
public who think the Board members are uneducated or under-educated on this topic, he said that
it’s a messy topic, and they may be to some degree, but he said that he knows that the University
is trying very hard from both an operational and maintenance perspective to do its best to target
and improve energy use. He said he finds it difficult when it comes to SEQR because to some
degree (as the others have said), your hands are tied. He said the boxes were checked as he thinks
they should be, and staff has done due diligence and the Board members have done the best they
can. He said that he has been working with Jones to try to make changes on this issue because
they care about every generation in the room as well as those to come.
Petrina said that it has been very uncomfortable, and that’s a good thing. She said it should be
because it’s our planet and our future. She thanked the members of the public for holding their
feet to the fire and making it uncomfortable every month. She said that level of discomfort has
prompted the Board to bring the issue to the City. She said that if the Neg Dec moves forward
tonight, people shouldn’t feel defeated because it’s not the end of the story. She said she does
feel comfort that it’s a good building, that it meets the legal standard and performs 30 percent
better than required by code. She said she also takes comfort in knowing that they will be
moving the issue of fossil fuel use forward to Common Council.
Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance:
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina:
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
28
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board (“City Planning Board”) has one pending
application for site plan approval for the North Campus Residential Expansion (“Project”), located on
Cornell University Campus by Cornell University though its agent Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP
(“Applicant”), and
WHEREAS: the Applicant is proposing to construct two residential complexes, one for sophomores
(“Sophomore Site”) and the other for freshmen (“Freshman Site”) on two areas on North Campus (“Project
Site”). The Sophomore Site will have four residential buildings with 800 new beds and associated program
space totaling 299,900 SF, and a 1,200 seat, 66,300 SF dining facility. All buildings in the Sophomore Site
are in the City of Ithaca (“City”); the small portion in the Village of Cayuga Heights (“Village”) contains
landscape improvements. The Freshman Site will have three new residential buildings, each spanning the
City and Town of Ithaca (“Town”) line with a total of 401,200 SF and 1,200 new beds and associated
program space, 223,400 of which is in the City and 177,800 of which is in the Town. The buildings will be
between two and six stories using a modern aesthetic. The Project is in three zoning districts: the U-I zoning
district in the City in which the proposed 5 stories and 55 feet are allowed; the Low Density Residential
District (“LDR”) in the Town, which allows for the proposed two-story residence halls (with a special
permit); and the Multiple Housing District within the Village in which no buildings are proposed.
WHEREAS: this has been determined to be a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”) §176-4 B.(1)(b), (h) 4, (i) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (“SEQRA”) § 617.4 (b)(5)(iii), and
WHEREAS: State Law specifies that for Actions governed by local environmental review the Lead Agency
shall be that local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the
Action, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for
approving and funding or carrying out the Action, did, on August 28, 2018 declare itself Lead Agency for
environmental review of the Project, and
WHEREAS: pursuant to CEQRO/SEQRA, on July 25, 2018 the City Planning Board distributed to all
potentially Involved and Interested Agencies a Notice of Intent to Act as Lead Agency, a copy of the Project
Application, and a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, and
WHEREAS: the Town Planning Board, Village Planning Board, the NYS Dormitory Authority, NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Tompkins County Department of Health are all
potentially involved agencies in this action and have all consented to the City Planning Board acting as
Lead Agency for this Project, and
WHEREAS: pursuant to CEQRO/SEQRA, the City Planning Board is the Lead Agency for the Project,
and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, has on December
18, 2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 & 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning Board,
and the following environmental information: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for
Foundation Design for Site #1- CC Lot Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York, February 8,
2018, John P. Stopen Engineering LLP; Report of Geotechnical Engineering Evaluations for Foundation
Design for Site 2- Appel Fields Proposed North Campus Housing, Ithaca, New York, February 7, 2018,
John P. Stopen Engineering LLP; Public Archeology Facility Report, Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey,
Cornell University North Campus Project, City and Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County New York, MCDs
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
29
10940, 10906, Andrea Zlotucha Kozub, Binghamton University, State University of New York, April 11,
2018; Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed North Campus Residential Expansion, City of Ithaca, Town of
Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights, Tompkins County New York, June 2108, SRF Associates, Rochester
NY; North Campus Residential Expansion, Circulation Study, April 2018, Kimley Horn of New York P.C.;
Energy and Emission Impact Assessment of the North Campus Residential Expansion at Cornell University,
7/6/18 Taitem Engineering, PC, Ithaca, New York; North Campus Residential Expansion, Review
Application Report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY July 12, 2018; Memo dated September 17, 2018, from
Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels LLP to Brent Cross, Village of Cayuga Heights;
Memos dated October 12, 2018 and September 17, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge
Wolf Michaels LLP to Chris Balestra, Planner, Town of Ithaca, and Memos dated November 14, 2018,
October 12, 2018 and September 5, 2018, from Kimberly Michaels, Principal Trowbridge Wolf Michaels
LLP to Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, City of Ithaca.
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Commission, Tompkins County
Department of Planning and Sustainability, and all other interested parties have been given the opportunity
to comment on the proposed Project and all received comments have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the City Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly elaborated
in the FEAF, that the Applicant has mitigated any potentially significant impacts to the environment, now,
therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City Planning Board determines for the reasons detailed in Parts 2 and 3 of the FEAF,
which are incorporated herein by reference, that the proposed Project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law be issued in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of SEQRA.
Moved by: Jones
Seconded by: Petrina
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
The Board then took a 5 minute recess.
C. Falls Park Apartments (74 Units), 121-125 Lake Street by IFR Development LLC.
Review of FEAF Part 3 – No action. The applicant proposes to build a 133,000 GSF,
four-story apartment building and associated site improvements on the former Gun Hill
Factory site. The 74-unit, age-restricted apartment building will be a mix of one- and
two-bedroom units and will include 7,440 SF of amenity space and 85 parking spaces
(20 surface spaces and 65 covered spaces under the building). Site improvements
include an eight-foot wide public walkway located within the dedicated open space on
adjacent City Property (as required per agreements established between the City and
the property owner in 2007) and is to be constructed by the project sponsor. The project
site is currently in the New York State Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). Before
site development can occur, the applicant is required to remediate the site based on soil
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
30
cleanup objectives for restricted residential use. A remedial investigation (RI) was
recently completed at the site and was submitted to NYSDEC in August 2018. The
project is in the R-3a Zoning District and requires multiple variances. This is a Type I
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)
§176-4 B(1) (h)[2], (k) and (n) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”) §617-4 (b) (11).
Kimberly Michaels from Trowbridge, Wolf, Michaels Landscape Architects; Frost Travis,
Travis-Hyde Properties; and Robert Keane, WDG Architecture appeared to present project
updates.
Michaels presented a brief history of the site. She said the Ithaca Gun factory was closed in
1980, and that by 2009 the owner was Wally Diehl. Under his ownership and with the assistance
of the City, they received a $1.8 million Restore NY grant to take down the building and do
some remediation. She said all materials removed were treated as contaminated, and that the
primary soil contaminant was lead. She said the building itself was contaminated with asbestos,
the bricks contained barium, and there was a pit in the basement containing some solvents. She
said that lead contaminants remained in the surface and sub-surface soils on the parcel. She said
that at that time the DEC approved holding the site in a non-capped state, anticipating that there
would be redevelopment on the site. She said that there is some groundwater contamination with
VOCs in the bedrock, approximately 30 feet below finished grade.
Michaels said that in 2012 Travis-Hyde took title of the property, and at that time the program
was accepted into the Brownfield Cleanup Program (as a volunteer). She said they didn’t create
the contamination, but they are committed to getting it cleaned up. She said at that time
preliminary development plans were explored, but that not much could be done with the site until
the cleanup is done. She said that there were public allegations that it sat lingering in the Travis-
Hyde portfolio, but there was still a lot of brownfield work to do. At that time O’Brien & Gere
was hired to do a remedial investigation.
She said that in 2015 the public walkway portion of the site and the island were donated to the
City of Ithaca and remediated under a NYS DEC environmental restoration program. She said
the state funds required a match, which Travis-Hyde provided to the City to perform the cleanup.
She said that with the DEC, you tell them your intended use of the site will be and they tell you
how you will need to clean based on that use. She said that not every bit of contaminated soil
was removed from the site but rather an amount determined by DEC to be necessary to keep
people safe. She said that when they reach the depth required by DEC, they put down orange
snow fence to create a demarcation line (should anyone ever dig there in the future) and then cap
it with clean soil. She said the DEC also installed monitoring wells around the site to track the
low levels of contamination deep in the fissures in the bedrock. Then, she said, fast-forward to
spring of 2018 and the City received a “No Further Action” letter from the DEC, meaning the
site has been cleaned sufficiently for the proposed use and the cleanup efforts are complete.
Michaels said that the reason that it has taken so long to come forward with the redevelopment
proposal is that they first had to complete the necessary cleanup work. She said that the
redevelopment plans for the site currently proposed would require the removal of up to 15 feet of
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
31
soil from the site, resulting in almost all of the contaminated material being removed. What
remains will be so deep and covered with concrete that the expectation is that it will meet the
DEC requirements for capping and keeping the site safe. She concluded by saying there is no
path forward for this project unless the DEC and Department of Health declare the site safe.
Michaels next addressed a question about how the proposed project would align with Tompkins
County’s energy conservation goals. She said that the exact energy profile of the building is still
in development. She said that a memo had been circulated in which project engineers had filled
out a checklist with yes, no, maybe for various options. She said that a bulleted list provided
indicates all the “yes” items, the most compelling of which (given the Board’s recent
conversations with the public surrounding energy use) is that the building will be using
electrically powered heat pump systems and will employ an efficient building envelope.
Finally, Michaels presented a series of shots showing views of the proposed building as visible
from a number of points around town.
The Board asked applicants to return with a few additional photo mock-ups from a few other
locations, and a photo mock-up showing the proposed building elevations against a current
conditions photograph.
The Board asked the applicant to consider and propose mitigations from impacts from lighting.
Elliott and other Board members also asked for mitigations for the impacts on birds from the
expanse of glass.
After some additional discussion about site cleanup efforts, Director Cornish suggested that they
might have Nels Bohn attend and give an overview of the cleanup history to date.
Additional questions were raised about whether the smokestack would remain or be demolished.
Michaels said that the structural integrity was in question, and there is contamination under it
that needs to be removed. She said it is also a public safety concern in that they have had several
instances of people climbing it with the intent to jump off.
Elliott asked if they might be able to incorporate the smoke stack materials somewhere else in
the project.
Applicants said they would look into it.
Elliott asked if they had looked into LEED ND, saying that the location lends itself to that.
Hyde said they would need to look into what that would require.
Glass asked about next steps.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
32
Nicholas said that the applicant would provide the additional views requested, staff would
incorporate any additional information provided into the Part III, and Nels Bohn would attend
the next meeting (if possible) to discuss the history of the cleanup efforts for the site. She said
that staff and the Board will need to work on completing Part III and that the applicants will also
need to go to the BZA to apply for several variances concurrently with Site Plan Review.
D. New Two-Family Dwellings, 815-817 N Aurora by Daniel Hirtler for Stavros
Stavropoulos. Public Hearing . The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-
family residential structure and construct two new 1,290 SF two-family dwellings on a
9,590 SF lot. The existing residential building is a legally non-conforming building
with a side setback deficiency (2.9 feet instead of the required 5 feet). The proposed
redevelopment will include four parking spaces for four three-bedroom apartments.
The applicant is requesting the Board’s approval to use the landscaping compliance
method for parking arrangement. The project site is located in the R-2b Zoning District
and meets all applicable zoning lot and setback requirements. This is an Unlisted
Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”)
and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”).
Daniel Hirtler appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. He handed out revised
elevations and a completed neighborhood compatibility study with photos and statistics for all
properties neighboring the project site. Hirtler gave a brief overview of the proposal to demolish
the existing buildings and build two duplexes on the site.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Jones, seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
Margaret Royall of 818 North Aurora Street, across the street from the site of the proposed
project, she said she has lived there for 6 years, she has two children in Fall Creek elementary,
and she is a homeowner and active community member. She said that she is not a “Not in my
backyard” type of person, and she values affordable housing, diversity, and community. She said
she’s speaking tonight to voice concerns many neighbors share. She said her concern is that
downtown neighborhoods may shift from being diverse urban residential communities to
becoming clusters of profitable, high-density, high-turnover rental units. She said that housing is
already unaffordable for many families and individuals looking to buy due to high prices being
set by investment-oriented buyers looking for development projects like this. She said these
investors often don’t live in the neighborhood and aren’t looking to occupy the homes they buy
or build but are instead looking to make a profit. She said that more than half the properties on
the block are already serving as rentals, with most of them having been divided into multiple
units. She said that some of them are poorly maintained with trash in the yards, no landscaping,
abandoned vehicles, and other issues, like plywood in windows. She said many vehicles parked
on the street hinder street sweeping and snow plows. She said of the remaining properties, two
are currently unoccupied, and five are occupied by elderly neighbors, and she said she could
foresee these seven properties coming on the market in the near future. Thus, she is concerned
that her street could become a cluster of high priced rentals. She said she is not opposed to either
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
33
density or rental housing, but she is concerned that more people will be renting short-term, there
will be fewer families with children in the neighborhood, and there will be few or no
opportunities for long-term residents who want to invest in building a healthy community. She
asked that the applicant consider ways to make the project more attractive to longer term rentals
or families, such as making a pocket neighborhood, two standalone single family homes, or a
single duplex. She also asked the City to prioritize formulating a development plan to preserve
the character, diversity, and long-term residential quality of Fall Creek and other core urban
neighborhoods. She said she’d like to see the City pro-actively work to balance rentals and
owner occupied housing, while including goals to preserve affordable housing options, perhaps
in collaboration with INHS.
Max Grahn of 510 Linn Street said he is a neighbor to the proposed project. He said he is
concerned about the project because it seems like the buildings will take up much of the lot,
resulting in a loss of grass and trees. He said he is also concerned about flooding, as the
rainwater already floods Aurora Street, and this project could cause flooding in neighboring
areas. He said most of the homes in the neighborhood have a lot of lawn and greenspace, but this
plan, with such large buildings and so much concrete looks different.
Christina King of 516 Linn Street (diagonally behind proposed project area) said she wanted to
reiterate the need for family-friendly housing, both rental and owner-occupied. She said there’s a
lot of student-oriented development right now, much of which is aimed at wealthy grad students
who only stay for a few years. She said that Fall Creek is a treasure (as are many of the other
downtown neighborhoods), and that people come from all over for Porchfest and to trick or treat
on Halloween. She said the Free Range Kids initiative would not be possible without
neighborhoods like Fall Creek, but she said it’s becoming increasingly unaffordable, not only for
new families to move in, but for those who have lived there for decades to stay. She said
numerous families would love to live there and be part of the community but are unable to
because they are being priced out by investors. She said the decline in number of families has led
to the school struggling with low enrollment. She said she would love to see something built that
has the potential to be owner occupied, or at least attractive to families. She said that it might be
as simple as having a place to play in the yard. She said as well that the entrances do not
encourage interaction with other neighbors, like something like a front porch would. She too
expressed concern for the localized flooding that already is a problem for this portion of N.
Aurora Street. She recommended a stormwater study be done before any development on the
site.
Barbara Smith of 821 North Aurora Street asked a few questions of the Board related to
Environmental Review. She also said that if it is demolished, she hope it will be inspected for
safety (asbestos concerns). She said she would miss the back yard, especially because there
aren’t many open areas for kids and this is one of the only large back yards in the whole
neighborhood. She said she would be happy for her neighbor to sell and make money from the
property, however, so she had no more comments.
There being no additional members of the public appearing to speak, on a motion by Jones,
seconded by Johnston, Chair Lewis closed the public hearing.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
34
Chair Jones offered the applicant an opportunity to respond.
Stavropolous said that he owns 514 Linn Street behind the proposed project, so he knows some
of the neighbors who spoke tonight. He thanked them for their comments and feedback. He said
he takes this to heart, and that he will put it into what they are trying to accomplish with this
project. He said he acquired the property a few months ago. He said it is a large lot of over 9,000
SF, so his initial thought was to create a pocket neighborhood of three buildings, but after
looking at several arrangements, they determined that it would not work, so next they considered
subdividing into two lots, but given required setbacks, that would create two deep but very
narrow buildings that looked like trailers, so they abandoned that idea as well. He said that the
proposed duplexes is what they came up with after exploring those other options. He said that
from doing another project on Queen Street last year, they determined when they were trying to
rent it that families needed more space, so that’s why they are proposing including a den and
doing a bigger layout on this project, to make the units more appealing to families. He said they
are not gearing this towards students, that they want to these units to be appealing to families.
Chair Lewis thanked him and said he wondered if there is still some way that they could make it
more contextual on the street. He then asked the other Board members if they had any
suggestions or comments.
Jones said she lives on this street in the pocket neighborhood, and she walks past this house
every day when she takes her child to school. She said that what makes her pocket neighborhood
successful and what this layout lacks is the orientation around a central gathering space. She said
they might be able to make improvements by reorienting the parking, and maybe the houses as
well. She said that the houses are the same shape and size, that they are copies of the same house,
that there’s no offset to them, so the design doesn’t feel organic at this time, but she said she
thinks the applicant could address those issues. She said the site design is missing a few key
elements to succeed as infill. She also said that this is an example where zoning allows
something that isn’t necessarily desirable. She suggested that they refer to the design guidelines
that might direct them to include features like porches (that would be more in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood), and consider adding more green space and trees. She also said
she would be interested in seeing the drawings Hirtler came up with when looking at the
possibility of subdividing the property. She said it is common in Fall Creek to have tightly
spaced houses on narrow, deep lots.
Discussion between the applicant and Board members about possible alternate site layouts
followed. Applicant agreed to bring some alternate site layout plans to the next Project Review
Committee meeting.
E. Maguire Ford Lincoln Additions and Improvements, 370 Elmira Road by John
Snyder Architects PLLC. Public Hearing and Potential Determination of
Environmental Significance. The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the
existing building and construct two additions with updated exterior materials. The
existing building is 18,500 GSF, with 2,265 GSF proposed for demolition. The new
building will be 24,110 GSF. Site improvements include incorporation of a new
pedestrian walking path, and site connections to Wegmans. Approximately 311 parking
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
35
spaces are proposed to accommodate customer, service parking, employee, and display
parking. Landscape design will improve vegetative cover; however, it will not meet the
City of Ithaca’s impervious/pervious requirements (12%). The project site is located
in the SW-2 Zone, is subject to the 2000 Southwest Design Guidelines, and will require
a zoning variance for a front yard that exceeds the maximum permissible in the SW-2
district (34 feet maximum permitted, 69-feet 3-inch setback proposed). This is an
Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”); however,
it will be treated as a Type I Action for the purpose of environmental review.
Architect John Snyder appeared to present revisions to the site plan proposed for the project. He
said the most notable changes are that the sidewalk alignment connecting a pedestrian walkway
directly to Wegmans, addition of a bike rack and two electric vehicle charging stations, the
redesign of a tree island as a bioswale, and the addition of more plantings. He said they are
meeting the 12 percent greenspace requirement, and he submitted new renderings and showed
the Board materials samples.
Public Hearing
On a motion by Johnston, seconded by Petrina, Chair Lewis opened the Public Hearing.
There being no members of the public appearing to speak, Chair Lewis closed the Public Hearing
on a motion by Blalock, seconded by Petrina.
The Board reviewed Part III of the FEAF, and reviewed the Site Plan Ordinance requirement for
25 percent greenspace and added a reference acknowledging that the applicant did not meet that
but that they did meet the 12 percent required by the Southwest Design Guidelines.
Adopted Resolution for a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significant:
On a motion by Petrina, seconded by Johnston:
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for Site Plan
Review for two new additions and site improvements for the car dealership at 504 S Meadow Street by
John Snyder Architects on behalf of the owner, Maguire Family Limited Partnership, and
WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to demolish a portion of the existing building and construct two
additions with updated exterior materials. The existing building is 18,500 GSF, with 2,265 GSF proposed
for demolition. The new building will be 24,110 GSF. Site improvements include incorporation of a new
pedestrian walking path, and site connections to Wegmans. Approximately 311 parking spaces are proposed
to accommodate customer, service parking, employee, and display parking. The project site is located in
the SW-2 Zone, is subject to the 2000 Southwest Design Guidelines, and will require a zoning variance for
a front yard that exceeds the maximum permissible in the SW-2 district (34 feet maximum permitted, 69-
feet, 3-inch setback proposed), and
WHEREAS: this is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance
(“CEQRO”) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”); however, it will be treated as a
Type I Action for the purpose of environmental review, and
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
36
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility
for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on November 27, 2018 declare itself the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of the project, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has on December 18,
2018 reviewed and accepted as adequate: A Full Environmental Assessment Form (“FEAF”), Part 1,
submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Planning staff and amended by the Planning
Board; the following drawings: “Context Map,” “Zoning Map and Analysis,” “Survey,” and Perspective
View 1, dated December 5, 2018 and “Existing Conditions Plan,” “Demolition and Erosion Control Plan,”
“Layout & Materials Plan,” “Grading & Drainage Plan,” “Greenspace Plan”, “Planting Plan,” “Site
Details,” “Rendered Site Plan,” “East & West Rendered Elevations,” “North & South Rendered
Elevations,” and Perspective Views 2 and 4; all revised and dated December 18, 2018, and prepared by
John Snyder Architects et. al., and,
WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission has been given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed project and any comments received to date on the aforementioned
have been considered, and
WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, has determined, as more clearly explained in Part
3, that the applicant has mitigated any potential negative impacts of the project to the maximum extent
practicable, and, now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: that the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project
will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article
8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Moved by: Petrina
Seconded by: Johnston
In Favor: Blalock, Elliott, Glass, Johnston, Jones, Lewis, Petrina
Against: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Vacancies: None
F. Sketch Plan – West Hill-Tiny Timbers
Noah Demarest appeared to present a proposal to build a pocket neighborhood of 20 Tiny
Timbers homes on West Hill at the end of Campbell Avenue. The site is 5.7 acres off of Hector
Street. The goal is to subdivide so the homes will be owner occupied, and to make the homes
come in under $200,000 to be affordable. They are looking at building one- and two-bedroom
homes at or under 1,000 SF. He also presented a sketch of the initial site plan.
A brief question and answer period with the Board and staff followed the presentation.
Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 26, 2019
37
G. Sketch Plan – 112-114 Summit Ave/ 238 Dryden Road
Demarest explained the confusion about the property address, saying that it didn’t have an
address assigned to it yet, but they are anticipating it will be assigned 238 Dryden Road. He said
the proposal is for an infill development on an empty lot facing Dryden Road next to a project
they recently completed on Summit Ave. They are proposing a four-story apartment building.
Demarest asked for Board members’ opinions on what finishes to use – if they should match the
recently completed buildings next to it.
Consensus was that they should not match the current buildings, but should make the new
building distinct.
6. Old/New Business
PRC meeting time/date
The Board members agreed to move the meeting to 8:30 a.m. on Thursdays two weeks before the
Planning Board meeting.
Jones said they were moving ahead with drafting a memo on enacting a stricter policy on fossil
fuel use within the City to send to Common Council (and other groups).
7. Reports
A. Planning Board Chair
Chair Lewis thanked everyone for their work to keep everything on topic and moving forward at
the meeting that night, and he commended Petrina for her willingness to vote against the
majority (on the Fountain Place approval).
B. Board of Public Works Liaison
No report.
C. Director of Planning & Development
No report
8. Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. by unanimous consent.
Joe Wilson
Comments to the Ithaca City Planning and Economic Development Board
December 18,2018
Today's planned Negative Declaration marks several missed opportunities.
Cornell missed its opportunity to engage the local community in a systematic
review of best ways to protect ourselves from climate change.Cornell missed its
opportunity to engage with the community about the best ways to reduce its explosion
of methane emissions. And it refused any discussion of building to the standards it
applied in New York City or those in your own Green Building Policy.
This Board missed opportunities to exercise its discretion to call for unbiased
information on the impacts of Cornell's emissions or to get unbiased information on the
full range reasonable and practical mitigation measures.The Board missed the
opportunity use 5EQRA as it was designed-as a tool to protect and improve the
environment while developing the community.
We concerned citizens seem to have.missed the opportunity to put our comments
to you in which could impact your decision-making.
While these lost opportunities will have serious negative consequences for you,
your children and your grandchildren in the next 20-50 years,the sliver lininqis that
each future development proposal will create newchances for all of us to do better.
So look forward to our developers making more sustainable proposals,to this
Board looking beyond the obvious biases of hired consultants and developer's lawyers,to
the City Council supporting your acting in more climate sensitive ways, and we concerned
citizens ing more successful ways to provide input.
Thank you
NCRE
serving in this
you.
the time carefully .........,""'.........,..,the
a concern
purpose is "
City's Code of Ethics (§55-7)states actual conflicts interest and even the
appearance of conflict interest should be avoided.
Cornell U the "'''IIF'll-''-.''-'''''
are rf:1\j'lf:1\.1\11 nlU
I am a retired Sociologist with long experience studying human bias, be it
conscious or unconscious. Sinceactors can not detect their own unconscious
both research methodologies and the City Code,of Ethics (§55-8)
help them avoid conflict of interest.
Therefore,due respect for you hard and good intentions,I
request that the four of you recuse yourselves from the final NCRE decision-
making process.
12.18.2018
To:Ithaca City Planning Board
From:Marie McRae, Dryden
It is the challenge of our time to recognize,address,and
when possible mitigate,the harm that is being done to our
climate.You are in a unique position to plan for better
buildings,for a better environment,in our corner of the world.
As representatives of the lead agency on the NCRE, to allow
the process of permitting to be hijacked by the applicant's
presentation of themselves as the only expert is to betray
your responsibility.To refuse the opportunity to hire a neutral
authority,and to pay no attention to the valuable resource of
educated residents who have appeared before you,offering
solidly researched information about building envelope
importance,about alternatives for heating,and about SEQR,
is foolish.
The end game comes down to the SEQR process. I am
appalled at the possibility that this body might rule for a
negative declaration of environmental impact for a project of
this size without requiring an EIS. As lead agency on this and
other projects of similar size, reclaim your authority and
require an EI$.Reasonable people expect a negative impact
to the environment whenever large construction happens.We
all deserve better mitigation measures.You can make that
happen.Require an EIS.
Comments on NCRE
December 18, 2018
Elmer Ewing
Imagine--you are in court to watch a trial.When the judge is uncertain,he turns to the
defense attorney to interpret how the law applies. That wouldn't seem fair.Of course we are
not in a trial here, but I see similarities.
One example: I have heard you raise questions about building design in relation to
efficient use of energy. For answers, you consulted with the applicant. That's okay, but should
you depend entirely on that source when independent expertise is available?There might be
some bias involved.
I think the applicant oversold the value ofLEED silver and gold, and you have taken
their word on faith. In terms of greenhouse gas,research has shown LEED silver was inferior
to ordinary construction of NYC office buildings, and LEED gold was only 20%
better.~~~:..!-.!...!...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please note that the closer the building approaches to energy net zero, the less the source
of energy matters. And that even reducing the loss of green energy is important--what is wasted
could have been used elsewhere to replace fossil fuels.Net zero building reaps benefits far into
the future.
You could consult outside experts on this and other matters raised by the public. It would
cost the city nothing if done under an EIS with scoping. To me, that would be the fair way to
proceed.
And perhaps the analogy to a trial isn't bad. We are all on trial in the Court of Justice to
Future Generations.
City of Ithaca Planning &Development Board
Brian Eden
December 18,2018
Over 3 years ago I participated in a team that presented to the City's
Planning Economic Development Committee,Building and Heating
with the Climate in Mind.The power point featured a case study of 2
university dorms constructed in the same time period,one to LEED
standards,the other to Passive House.The latter used 62% less energy
than the LEED dorm and 74% less than Code.It also had a lower square
foot cost than the LEED building.
I submit this information to you again tonight.I am disappointed that
not one Board member has shown an interest in this superior building
design.I submitted a 6-page technical comment on Passive House at
your October 22 meeting and,having attended every Board meeting
that reviewed this project,I have not heard a word from you on Passive
House as a plausible,indeed logical,mitigation option.Not only have
you not given this technologically feasible and cost-effective mitigation
strategy a "hard look,"you don't appear to have looked at it at all.
Technological feasibility?Here is a booklet,From Small to Extra Large,
Passive House Rising to New Heights.It lists 51 Passive House buildings
built in NYS including mixed use,multi-family buildings.Recently the
Dormitory Authority of NYS presented a webinar on Net Zero Energy
Residence Hall Building Hall Development.Here in Ithaca,one proposal
for the Green Street Redevelopment project utilized Passive House
design.That developer is committed to constructing a multi-family
building to Passive House standards at the first opportunity.
In the FEAF Part 3 (p.1S)it is stated that "after careful evaluation,the
Lead Agency has determined that the applicant is minimizing the use of
energy".That statement is factually incorrect.The Passive House design
model is far superior to that of LEED.I would like to believe that YOU J as
a responsible Lead Agency,would be willing to study this model.An EIS
will almost certainly demonstrate the major value-added when the
applicant's LEED design is rigorously compared with that of a Passive
House building.
--
==E::J ...
Hickory Hall -Emory &Henry College
e B i It in 2 -
e Large Pass s
lido g i
e ••ses %I ss
e th Its
I Hall w ich IS
E e fida
4%less t an
-Ernplovs G HPsand
energy recovery
vehicles
Hickory Hall -Emory &enry College
•Reduced installed cooling capacity from 68 tons in Elm Hall to
14 tons
•Reduced heating capacity from 68 tons to 12 tons even
though it is 11%larger than Elm Hall
Hickory Hall -Emory &Henry College
-Hlckorv Hall (40,000 sq ft and 117 beds)=$118.25 /ft2
Completed in 2013
-Elm Hall (36,000 sq ft and 116 beds)=$125 /ft2
Completed in 2010
Hickory Hall -Emory &Henry College
-Hickorv Hall (40,000 sq ft and 117 beds)=
-Elm Hall (36,000 sq ft and 116 beds)=
Hickory uses 62%less energy than
Elm and 74%less than code
City of Ithaca Planning &Development Board
From:Brian Eden
Re:Comment on the North Campus Residential Expansion Project
October 22, 2018
r nning Development Members,
At the outset my comment,I wish to acknowledge Cornell's major
achievements in adopting sustainability practices and establishing a goal
carbon neutral comments are directed specifically to the
application that is now under consideration by the Board.
The North Campus Residential Expansion will be the largest development
project in Tompkins County in the past decade.The decision before you has
serious implications for achieving the Town's and County's greenhouse gas
emission reduction goals.Cornell is apparently committed to heating exclusively
with methane for the next .10-15 years until the experimental Earth Source Heat
project may (or may not)be online.Therefore,the energy performance of the
building becomes a critical consideration mitigating the projected greenhouse
gas emission impacts.
I will address here only my concerns with building energy performance.
Cornell states that the proposed buildings modeled energy use is "'30%better
than the latest state energy code standard".Given the rapidly accelerating pace
of climate change, ng energy codes are not the best measure to evaluate a
building's energy performance to achieve the needed reduction in greenhouse
emissions.Cornell's design standard for the proposed buildings is LEED.To
maximize a building's energy performance,it is far better to model a Passive
House design.Passive House building comprises a set of design principles used to
attain a quantifiable and rigorous level of energy efficiency.Such a building is
designed and built in .accordance with these building-science principles:employs
continuous insulation throughout its entire envelope without any thermal
bridging;the building envelope is extremely airtight,preventing infiltration of
outside air and loss of conditioned air,employs high-performance windows
(double or triple-paned windows depending on climate and building type)and
doors,uses some form of balanced heat-and moisture-recovery ventilation,and
uses a minimal space conditioning system.Each of these principles has an
associated performance metric.Passive House building principles can be applied
to all building typologies -from single-family homes to multifamily apartment
ildings,offices,and skyscrapers.Cornell did not model a Passive House design
for the North Campus buildings.Case studies indicate that such higher performing
buildings may be constructed at a relatively similar cost to that of a LEED designed
building.I previously provided the 2 dorm comparison from Emory and Henry
College where the Passive House dorm substantially out-performed the LEED
dorm while having been constructed with a lower per square foot cost.
Recently Andreas ng,President Passive House,visited
Ithaca to meet with interested persons.He distributed a booklet "From Small to
Extra Large: Passive House Rising to New Heights".It lists 51 new construction of
and renovation to Passive House building standards in NYS.You may be familiar
with the House at Cornell Tech.There are several other such multi story buildings
Passive House buildings in NYC.This past summer I attended the Low Income
Forum on Energy in Albany.I sat in on a presentation on the Passive House
designed Corona Senior Residence and later talked with the architect.The
building was built by a nonprofit organization whose clients had been displaced
by Superstorm Sandy. The organization decided to construct a building whose
resilience and engineering design would maximize the potential for residents to
shelter in place during power outages or extreme weather events,reducing the
adverse impacts on comfort and health that vulnerable populations can
experience during relocation.Constructing for the needs of seniors added some
complexity to the project.It became even more challenging when they added a
daycare facility on the first floor.
I'll not be too sanguine about the challenges that constructing to a Passive
House standard presents to a developer.It requires an integrated design process.
This entails close coordination and cooperation among all the parties;developer,
architect,engineer,and general contractor,a condition rarely found during a
traditional construction process. I have previously submitted a comparison of
dorms constructed Emory and Henry College in approximately the same time
· one to D design standards and the other to Passive House. The Passive
House dorm was constructed at a lower per square foot cost while achieving
much better energy performance metrics.Here is another example of a Passive
House designed dorm.
Greenhouse Dorm (Vienna,2015)
For economic reasons,the building had to be implemented in concrete
construction with a full thermal protection facade. By an alternative development
proposal,deviating from the original requirements of the master plan, a more
compact structure could be implemented,which reduces the built-up area, at the
same time ensures better tanning of the occupant rooms on the courtyard side
and offers more living space and less development areas for the same area.
The compactness of the structures and the clear structural design grid across all
floors,the use of semi-finished parts,prefabricated elements and floor slabs in
the shell construction as well as the space-optimized development system allow
moderate construction costs despite high equipment quality and excellent
energy values.Professional quality assurance and process support in the
execution planning as well as in the construction work by the project
management contributed significantly to the sustainability.
The rainwater is seeped through infiltration baskets in a core of the earth at the
site. The water consumption is reduced by flow restrictors and by fittings with
extended cold water range, as the requirement for hot water in dormitories is
above average,significantly reduced.
ENERGY CONCEPT
For more than 10 years, all student residences of the OeAD-WV have been built
only in the minimum passive house standard according to the guidelines of the
Passive House Institute Darmstadt.
A highly insulated,preferably thermal bridge-free and airtight building shell as
well as a comfort ventilation system with heat recovery are the basic
requirements for reaching the passive house standard.
To achieve the zero energy standard,a centralized ventilation unit with 2 parallel
rotary heat exchangers with heat and moisture recovery and special filters has
been developed to reduce energy consumption.In the course of the research
project}the ventilation could be carried out on demand and the energy
consumption could be reduced.The residual heat requirement is covered by
Fernwarrne Wiens
The water heating is also provided by Fernwarme Wien.Mittels
Wasserpararmaturen with an extended cold water range (cold water in the
middle position),the hot water consumption,which is in the houses of the OeAD-
WV from experience above average} be reduced.
On the flat roofs}the largest possible PVsystem was installed.In order to reduce
the surpluses that would have to be fed into the grid,a battery storage system
was installed in the 2.UG as part of a research project.By an electrical power
measurement at the root of the house,the excess can be measured and buffered
in the battery system.At times of an energy deficit at the root,the battery can be
discharged into the home network.
SPECIAL INNOVATIONS
Three home users}the Austrian Exchange Service HousingAdministration (OeAD-
WV),the Austrian Young Worker Movement (OJAB)and the Housing Association
for Private Employees (WBV-GPA) have come together for the first time to jointly
realize a forward-looking project in a new district - a highly efficient passive house
313 Austrian and international students.Due to the three different home
operators}an interesting mix of the residents and thus also an important impulse
for the new district can be expected.The WBV-GPA has also taken on the role of
developer and installer.
the time of its opening,GreenHouse was the world's first certified Passive
House Plus (PHI)student dorm,accompanied by a research project on electricity
storage and monitoring energy consumption.
In 15 reference rooms,S in each component,an extended monitoring with
various measurements takes place. For precise control of the energy balance of
the building}calibrated heat meters,energy meters,electricity meters and water
meters}temperature sensors,window contacts,humidity sensors} etc. are used
distributed throughout the building.The meters are equipped with bus modules
and communicate directly with the building management system (BMS). The
research project is being carried out by ASCR (Aspern Smart City Research) and
Siemens.
FLEXIBILITY
All forms of temporary living are possible.Due to the variety of space (single
apartments,double rooms,shared apartments for 2 - 4 people in different
equipment categories)usable for almost all user groups.The arrangement of the
3 buildings and the distribution of common areas on all buildings a mix of user
groups is possible.The entire development in the building and the majority of all
room units are barrier-free usable therefore a conversion as a senior apartment
or assisted living is conceivable.
Certification Scheme
[Passive House Plus is more efficient than Passive House Classic as it may not
consume more than 45 kWh/(m 2a)of renewable primary energy.It must also
generate at least 60 kWh/(m2a)of energy in relation to the area covered by the
building.]
261 Units;8488 sq.mo
Thermal envelope
Exterior wall
U-value =0.1 W/(m2K)
Basement floor /floor slab
U-value =0.09 W/(m2K)
Roof
U-value =0.06 W/(m2K)
Frame
U w-value =0.74 W/(m2K)
G ng
U g-value =0053 W/(m2K)
g -value =50 %
PHPP values
Air tightness
nSO =0.24/h
nual heating demand
kWh j(m2a )calculated according to PHPP
Heating
9W/m2
Prima energy requirement
81 kWh /(m2a ) on heating installation,domestic hot water,household electricity
and auxiliary electricity calculated according to PHPP
Hopefully an Environmental Impact Statement will be required to assist
Cornell and the community in achieving the best potential outcome.Passive
House design combined with associated solar pv and energy storage could result
in near net zero buildings.Thank you for your consideration of the comments
provided to the Board to date.
C.Geisler Comment For IP&DB hearing,Dec.18, 2018
I am Charles Geisler. 517 Ellis Hollow Cr.Rd.,Ithaca.
As the final NCR£decision approaches,qualified experts have argued for a
POSDEC.The Applicant says otherwise.It believes its data-rich reporting is
equivalent to an EIS,thus favoring a NEGDEC.
I urge"you to use your Lead Agency discretion in favor of a POSDEC.
First, Cornell prepared EISs for West Campusand North Campus dorm projects.
Those EISs improved dorm design and functionality.When you replace sub-optimal
LEEDs designs with Passive House design,you're likely to save money as well.
Second,there's the Law of the Negative Bonus.This refers to double-edged effects
of something that seems positive-in this case,a NEGDEC for the applicant.Such a
declaration for a project with obvious environmental impacts could set an
unwanted precedent.th~y,:~~,':l f{)~~go
r:"h~U~Kl""..~."JE:.1 O~!hrna.t,~ni~J That cuts
out independent experts and risks privatizing a process that should be remain
public.
Please keep these major benefits of a POSDEC foremost in mind.
in ilosophya have been a
City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board
December 18,2018
My name is Kathryn L I have a
resident of Ithaca for 21 years.
I ask that you require an EIS for the North Campus Residential Expansion project.
I respect that you sought the expertise of a lawyer to ensure that you follow
proper procedure in reviewing Cornell's application.My expertise is in
environmental ethics and public policy.that basis, I ask that you make your
decision within the framework of climate justice.That is the most recent concept
in moral philosophy and climate ethics in the face of global warming.It states that
we ought to promote resiliency,adaptation and mitigation.Furthermore,it asks
that we make decisions that are fair to all stakeholders.
You have an opportunity help I put their desire to be leaders in the
response to global warming in front of their tendency to build out methane
dependent infrastructure and to seek to increase their revenue.
If you decide not to require an EI5,you will put the desire a wealthy institution
has to increase its revenue above the need seek mitigation of carbon
emissions.Leaders in the faculty and student body have asked that new Cornell
buildings have as Iowa carbon footprint as possible.A worry that you are singling
Cornell for unequal treatment or deviating from past practices and setting a
precedent you may not be comfortable with is misplaced.
You are instead protecting the needs of ALL stakeholders who will be affected if a
project which is not climate sensitive is allowed to proceed without due
consideration.
City of Ithaca Planning &Development Board
Barbara Eden
December 18, 2018
My name is Barbara Eden and I live in the Village of Cayuga Heights.I moved to
this area in 1973, and I am a Cornell Retiree.I was employed at the University
for 30 years in a management position in the University library.
I am so proud that the University has been a leader worldwide in its goals to
reduce the negative impacts of methane and C02 by campus operations,but to
heat these new dorms with fracked gas is a travesty and contradicts the climate
reduction goals that the University has made a mandate to achieve by 2035. In
addition,I am stymied as to why there is not a high performing building
envelope that would further reduce the need to use fracked gas.
I have been a long-term supporter of Cornell's carbon neutrality goal.I have
written letters to local municipalities in support of Cornell projects to advance
this goal.I'm very upset that in-turn the University or this committee would not
seriously consider recommendations from local experts and concerned citizens.
This heavy-handed treatment of the community will adversely impact town-
gown relations
I implore the Planning &Development Board members to speak truth to power
and require an EIS.There are countless things I love about Cornell,but the
desire to use fracked gas from the sacrifice zones just south of Ithaca is immoral,
I guarantee that it will weigh on your conscience as a Board member if you do
nothing to take a stand in support of our community.
I encourage the Board members to demonstrate civic courage and require the
EIS.You know in your heart that this is the right thing to do.
My name is Elisa Evett and I am a member of the local chapter of Mothers Out
Front.I am here asa mother and grandmother consumed by my concern for how
climate change,or more accurately,climate devastation will affect the lives of
future generations on this planet.Why do I come to you with this concern?
Because I think that given what is happening on the federal level, we have to do
everything in our powers to address it at the grass roots level, and that means you
and us.
In crafting this project,Cornell refused to prepare an EIS.In acquiescing to this
condition,you automatically shut out members of our community from the
process of thoroughly scrutinizing all aspects of the project's environmental
implications.It is troubling that you appeared to have swallowed wholesale
Cornell's calculations about the Green House Gasemissions of these buildings and
that you were unreceptive to information offered by well-informed,authoritative
members of the public.This suggests to me that you did not take your role in this
process seriously enough.
We,the public,were not trying to make your job harder.We were simply asking
you to do your job.And we came to help you,not harassyou. You squandered
the chance to weigh responsibly all the project's environmental consequences by
welcoming a public seoping required by an EIS.You could have sought third party
expert advice. This would have made your final decision about permitting this
project well informed and defensible.And it would have given us comfort in
these trying times to feel that we have good reason to trust our local officials,
especially those like you who are presumably free of private and political
interests .
.Elisa Evett
Co-chair,Mothers Out Front-Tompkins
Comment on NCRE by Thomas Blecher -Planning Board meeting
12/18/18
The Oxford dictionary defines significant as being "sufficiently
important to be worthy of attention"
The DEC website states that the lead agency must decide "if an
action is determined to have potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts.If so, an EIS is required
The DEC handbook states that a determination of significance must
include ...secondary impacts and cumulative impacts of an action.
Furthermore the Handbook states that a determination of significance
"is a threshold balance which should not balance benefits against
harm
The IPCC's landmark global warming report points to the catastrophic
climatic effects,within 12 years if we proceed on our current course
of GHGE. This report is based on cumulative emissions rather than
the emissions of one particular project or sector.
Cornell ignores the DEC's guideline which suggests an EIS if the
square footage of a project is over 100,000 square feet.Cornell's
NCRE is 750%larger.Cornell's own Sustainability Office (Cornell's
Greenhouse gas Emissions -published a year ago)stated that
because of upstream emissions (also ignored by Cornell's application)
"we must transition as quickly as possible aV'Jay from fossil fuels".
Cornell tries to minimize the amount of GHGE emitted by this large
project by comparing emissions to the Cornell campus and larger
entities.It,thereby ignores the cumulative significant effects
addressed by the IPCC as well as the DEC Handbook.
This project requires an EIS
Richard T. John
502 EastSeneca Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
(607)279-9332
Richard.john59@hotmaif.com
Ms.Joanne Cornish
Planning and Economic Development Division
City of Ithaca
108 East Green Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
Re: 2 Fountain Place Special Permit
Dear Ms. Cornish:
December 17,2018
I am writing regarding the above matter on the Planning Board agenda for the December 18 th,
2018 meeting.It is my understanding that this application is an allowed use under the zoning in
effect for this property.And Ithaca College should be able to obtain a reasonable return on the
sale of its property.However,there still appear to be factors the Planning Board should
consider in evaluating the grant of this Special Permit.
As I am sure you are aware,this property recently came before the BZA with a request to use
the premises asa Bed and Breakfast Inn. In that plan] all nine bedrooms would have been used,
in conjunction with the companion property located at 2 Willets Place.During the discussion of
that application,it seemed clear that use of all nine bedrooms and the Willets Place property
were necessary to make the purchase financially viable.In fact]there was some discussiqn o~
the budget for the project including some measure of income from special event programming
at the location.With the current proposal indicating that four bedrooms would be left empty
and no reference in the agenda of a coordinated use with the 2 Willets Place property,there
seems to be a real question on how the project would cost out as a business.
This financial risk belongs to the potential new owners and] based upon the discussion before
the BZA,these buyers have a business experience and presumably have analyzed how they can
make this work.However]I do understand the immediate neighbors}skepticism that]if
approved,the two properties would actually be operated as a coordinated Bed and Breakfast
Inn as originally proposed.I believe some of this skepticism arises because of the treatment of
the 2 Willets Place property.Because no variance is now requested}Willets Place is no longer
mentioned at all even though it was, and presumably still is,included in the original purchase
offer with Ithaca College. The uncertai_nty in how this second property would be operated}
while perhaps not directly in front of the Planning Board, is still of import in understanding the
impact on the neighborhood.In'any event}if approved]the new owners will be agreeing to
operate within limits that it is difficult to see that thev can meet]while generating a financially
sound return on their investment.This seems to be an instance where City enforcement of the
Special Permit conditions is a critical element.
If the Special Permit conditions are not adequately enforced,and the two properties are
operated as a Bed and Breakfast Inn,then the objections raised at the aZA hearing regarding
traffic}noise}parking,emergency vehicle accesson Fountain Place and Willets Place, and
impacts on the overall character of the neighborhood would all come into play. It can be
anticipated that the City will be asked to act at that point.There should be a high degree of
confidence by both the potential new owners and the nearby neighbors}that the resources will
be applied to appropriately police this use if a Special Permit is granted.Thank you for your
attention to this matter.
Sincerelv,
/~
,.,."
/"'
Richard T.John
December 17, 2018
Ithaca City Planning Board
City Hall
108 East Green Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Regarding:Special Permit Application 2 Fountain Place,Ithaca NY
Dear Members of the City of Ithaca Planning Board,
I am writing to express my concerns about and opposition to the special permit requested by the
Zimmermans related to their prospective purchase of 2 Fountain Place and,connected to their
prospective purchase of 2 Willets Place in Ithaca.I feel the application should be denied due to its
negative impact on life-safety,traffic,congestion and municipal services,as well as negative impacts
on the character of our historic neighborhood and the difficulty of monitoring adherence to the
principles of a B&B home.
Life-Safety:The vehicle access for both properties is a small lane that is more of a shared driveway
than a road.I see residents maneuvering their vehicles,cautiously,every day to access their homes.I
would liken it to a careful dance where the rules must be clear to those who participate.It appears
that there is inadequate access for fire trucks,delivery trucks and City services trucks,such as trash
and recycling,not to mention personal services such as landscaping trucks.The lack of a turn-
around and the tight lane make access and egress difficult.It seems to me incumbent upon the
Planning Board to be concerned with changes,such as introducing a regular flow of night-to-night
guests into this already deficiently accessed area,which could increase the already compromised life-
safety dangers to residents.If the existing situation is deficient,it seems the Planning board should
deny any new,special use that will arguably increase the life-safety dangers.
Character of the Neighborhood:The intent of R2a zoning is to maintain the residential character,
which is strong in this East Hill Historic district.The single and two-family,and even the non-
conforming multi-rentals,are primarily rented to long-term residents who are neighbors who live
pretty similarly to owner-occupied neighbors.There is a fundamental difference between night-to-
night guests,who come and go without commitment and are here for entertainment,versus people
who are connected to the neighborhood and have some ownership.Recently,there is significant
pressure on our Historic neighborhood applied by the City supporting commercial development
interests.The Seneca Way development,the Argos Inn and now the Argos Warehouse night club
(open 8pm -lam Thursday through Saturday)are now directly adjacent to historic,residential E
Seneca Street,and have created significant impacts on the livability for its residents.The application
in front of the Planning Board would serve to be another affront to this neighborhood,only from
the middle.
Monitoring Difficulties:Finally, I think adherence to the rules of a B&B home will be difficult for
the City to monitor.The documents submitted in support of this application create a sensation that
monitoring will be necessary due to evidence of a strong intent and motivation for commercial
profit on the part of the applicants.
•The application for a Use Variance,submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals last month,
made a strongly worded case that 2 Fountain Place would be unfeasible for the applicant to
HAAG Properties LLC
PO Box 866 Ithaca NY 14851
607/277/2016
Mark@haagproperties.com
18 December 2018
RE:Fountain Place Ithaca New York
Concerns about use proposal
Dear -City of Ithaca
HAAG Properties is a family owned business catering to Cornell University
Graduate Students since the 1960;s.Graduate Students intentionally seek out
housing that is quiet and away from social gathering areas;restaurants;hotels;
night clubs and noisy neighbors.
Our properties on Willets Place and East Buffalo Street are very popular with
these folks. They include:1 Willets Place;422 East Buffalo Street;426 East Buffalo
Street &440 East Buffalo Street.
Willets Placeis quaint;quiet -unique treasure located off East Buffalo Street in
the Historic District of Ithaca New York. The short residential Avenue is lined by a
few residential homes - some remain private homes and some buildings have
been converted to rental units.It is a very low key /low impact;no noise; no
parties,safe inviting area to live.
The proposed new use of the fountain place property -including the Willets Place
physical roadway and the two short term rental units located at 2 Willets Place-
will greatly affect and harm our current neighborhood.
HAAG Properties LLC
PO 866 Ithaca NY 14851
607/277/2016
Mark@haagproperties.com
My properties will be harmed and potentially devalued due to:
- Increased property insurance rates
Less interest from Graduate Students
May force rent decreases
Traffic -Auto &Pedestrian greatly increased
Noise -Pedestrian voices - events rental units
Noise -Auto:delivery trucks,garbage removal}maintenance vehicles}
Safety of the neighborhood
Loss of tranquility
Additional road traffic wear -Willets Place is not a City of Ithaca road.
o Road recently repaved at personal expense by Ithaca College}
Haag &Marchium -expensive project.
Special events such as weddings}graduations,birthdays,barbecues, (and others)
bring special problems:
- Traffic}parking,parking violations}noise} music bands; disc jockeys,
public address systems} trash}toilet facilities}crowd control}security for
the neighbors}personal security for my tenants,curfews}lights out,fire
control,light pollution}Alcohol &Drugs}
Other Major Concerns
Liability - Parking,auto vandelisium,property vandelisium,injury to
neighbors property,injury occurring on neighbor's property
o Alcohol use-Vehicular and / or pedestrian
o Drug use of any kind
HAAG Properties LLC
PO Box 866 Ithaca NY 14851
607/277/2016
Mark@haagproperties.com
Cascadilla Gorge -
-New project will bring unwanted,unnecessary,and unsafe -additional
human exposure to the gorge.
Injury and/or death potential will be greatly increased
Trash in the Gorge will become a serious problem.
Fences may have to erected -altering the natural beauty of the area.
The liability caused by this unwanted additional exposure should not be
the burden or the financial responsibility of the current property owners
affected by the proposed project.
Thank you for your consideration - we are concerned about protecting and
preserving our little piece of Ithaca.
Respectfully
Mark W. Haag II
HAAG Properties LLC
REGARDING THE APPEAL FOR A B&B HOME AT @ FOUNTAIN PLACE
_ON THE SUBJECT OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER;A LITTLE BACKGROUND
We moved into 3::'Fountain Place in 1984. We raised 4 children there.We have loved it}our
children loved it}they and their children continue to regard this as home.
Throughout the decades of our time here}the occupants of 2 Fountain Place have for the most
part been great neighbors.Despite assertions to the contrary we can assure you that the
President's house was first and foremost a home and welcome haven.When we first arrived on
the scene we found James Whalen to be a bit aloof but very personable.He lived there with his
wife and mother.He was not the kind of guy to drop by for a cup of sugar}but we did oblige
him when he needed to borrow a phone upon losing his keys. We came to know Peggy Williams
much better.She clearly enjoyed the privacy of the house and yet was routinely on the watch if
one of our children fell off a bike or skinned a knee in a game of street hockey. Tom Rochon and
his wife Amber had two children while residing at #2 Fountain.It was great to have young
children back in the neighborhood.Bikes}roller skates} play structures and sibling spats were all
in evidence.
Having these I C presidents as neighbors was a pleasure.When they entertained}which was
rarely}they were very careful and respectful of the effect such gatherings might have on the
rest of us. The routine was to entertain trustees once in the fall and again at graduation.They
also held a series of gatherings around Christmas for I C staff}their children and there was a
town and gown event.In all instances they posted security people at the entrances to Fountain
and Willets to restrict vehicular access to avert inconvenience or blockage of access for the
inhabitants.
The same can be said for the guest house at 2 Willets.It is 3 feet off our east property line
literally forming the eastern edge of our kitchen and related garden space.Nevertheless}over
the years} because it was so lightly used and so carefully managed it never was a problem for
us.
Needless to say}there will soon be changes for 2 Fountain and 2 Willets.The central question
before you] one that is of paramount importance to us} is: is the proposal before you the best
for the property and for the neighborhood?Keep in mind Fountain was on the open market
from May 2/18 to July 5/18]two months and 3 days. 2 Willets has essentially never been on the
open market.These properties are marketable and have not been given a chance to attract
buyers with other plans for them.I personally know they are out there.
--ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ENVISIONED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A B&B HOME AT 2 FOUNTAIN
AND A TWO UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY AT 2 WILLETS
In the previous}now aborted}use variance appeal put forward by the Zimmerrnans,their
representative produced elaborate financial models justifying the proposed scale and use of the
two proposed inns. In the case of 2 Willets these financial models were constructed to prove]at
least from their standpoint,that 2 Willets was not a viable investment as either a single family
dwelling or as a two family dwelling consistent with R2azoning. Hence their proposal to turn it
into a stand alone B&B Inn with 3 units.While this proposal fortunately failed,unfortunately it
is still essentially in play in this round.Clearly based on their previous arguments the appellants
plan to rent its two units in an Air B&B fashion.That means that it will de facto become an
extension of the B&B Home at 2 Fountain.I have no idea if this sort of thing is legal,but so far
the city seems to have turned a blind eye to this "m otel-ization"of its one and two family
housing stock. So at 2 Fountain/Willets we are really talking about 6 guest suites with day to
day occupancies.Will the guests at Willets be served breakfast at Fountain?Will they have
access to the public spaces?Will these apartments be booked through the B&B Home?
There was wisdom in the restriction that there can only be one B&B Home within 500 ft. It was
meant to avoid the hollowing out a neighborhood of long term occupants and it was meant to
preserve residential character.This "beat the system"approach takes a cynical view of what
was meant to be the nature of a B&B Home. It is not the only example of this sort of cynicism
inherent in the proposal before you.
BOTTOM LINE:THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS NOT REALLY FOR A HOME B&BI IT IS STILL THE
SAME BUSINESS MODEL AS BEFOREI
--ON THE SUBJECTS OF TRAFFIC,PARKING,ACCESS,EGRESS,MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND LIFE
SAFETY
Willets Place and Fountain Place are not streets.They are functionally more nearly shared
driveways.Fountain Place is 14 ft wide.It is not set up to accept parking.In a phone
conversation the City Fire Chief declared {/There is no parking on Fountain PlaceJ not on the
street or on the turn around.We are not going to allow an already bad situation to be made
worse."The Special Permit Appeal does not call for any parking on Fountain Place.
Nevertheless,it is inevitable that it will occur based on the scale of these two lanes and the
appellant's plans for activities at 2 Willets and 2 Fountain.The question is at what scale and
frequency.
There is parking on Willets Place. It serves 7 properties and is in fact a mine field of negotiated
access, egress, easements}rights of way} and deeded parking arrangements.It was formed by
an agreement in 1898 by the 3 property owners along Fountain Place involving a series of
easements as a way for #3 Fountain and #2 Fountain to have direct access to their "barns"
from Buffalo St. Today the first 160 feet of Willets Place from Buffalo,is effectively a single 12
ft.wide lane because of assigned and deeded parallel parking along its extent.{ see maps} This
lane is 2 feet narrower than the 14 ft.at Fountain.The agreement which assigned parallel
parking along this stretch of Willets dates back to an agreement and subsequent variance dated
1979 between 3 parties,I CJ Haag Properties and John and Jane Marcham in concert with the
Building Dept. {Note:Accompanying are documents from this variance and maps showing all of
Fountain/Willets Placesand the sketch from 1978 }
Willets Place has fatally compromised access and egress. Here is why:
-------Willets Place has no turn around.
--------If a vehicle}especially a delivery truck} makes the mistake of entering Willets it has two
options-hope that there will be a vacant parking space where a K turn can be made or just
back out into busy Buffalo Street.
--------The City garbage truck does come down Willets but it backs in having turned around on
Buffalo St.
--------The City recycling truck refuses to enter Willets.
---------THE FIRE HYDRANT FOR THIS PORTION OF EAST HILLISAT THE END OF WILLETSI {see
overall map}.
---------GIVEN THE SUBSTANDARD ACCESS ALONG THE FIRST 160 FEET OF WILLETS,FIRE TRUCK
ACCESS IS,KEEP IN MIND THISISA FIRE LANE, AT BEST1J , 1J } 1J 1J 1J 1J 1J QUESTIONABLE.
Into this context the plan is to introduce 6 transient guest vehicles,pretty certain there will be
more} on a daily basis plus multiple family vehicles} plus the vehicles of "family and friends"for
"gatherings".TRANSIENCE is very important here. People unaware of the situation}unaware of
the necessary negotiations,who in their frustration will find a spot somewhere.Do they know
about easements}emergency access}or care?How about deliveries}and where do those
landscape guys with their trucks and trailers park?
The appellants have presented a parking plan which is inadequate.Shoehorning 5 vehicles into
the 2 Fountain circular drive off Willets is at best impractical given the two gates at either entry.
Have you ever tried to parallel park on a curve} a sloping curve If this drive is stuffed with
vehicles how do arrivals}deliveries etc. happen? Cynically they know it. They shelved their
original parking plan}according to Brian McCracken of the City,when they were told it would
need to be reviewed by Landmarks.
In their recent letter to the neighbors the Zimmermans wrote:
[2] "As for parking}both properties have adequate off street parking.Fountain Place has [7]
spots and Willets Place has [3] spots. So the operation of a B&B will not burden on street
parking and therefore will not displace neighborhood parking at all."
Are they here committing to this assertion?No additional parking required?Are they
committing to [5] parked cars in the circular drive?And are they committing to not introducing
any addition demands on traffic from additional "off street parking"in Willets in the future?
Their assertion missesthe point.Parking is not the only issue although it is important one.
Specified minimums don't cut it.Willets place is not Aurora Street.
The traffic situation at Willets is already seriously compromised.To again paraphrase the fire
chief,wei you 'should not allow an already bad situation to be made substantially worse.'
--ACCESSORY USES BEYOND BED AND BREAKFAST
During the hearing addressing the appellants}previous use variance appeal they described a
series of accessory functions that they planned for their B&B Inn if approved.As they did their
excitement for this aspect of their plan noticeably escalated. Among the functions described
were weddings with 50 people in attendance,retreats}conferences, yoga on the terrace,
wellness clinics} music on the terrace,etc. Even a neighborhood commercial center was
mentioned.Fortunately,it was pointed out that these accessory functions would not be
permitted in the context of the usevariance being applied for. As a result}the appeal was
withdrawn.
In a recent letter to the lower east hill neighbors the Zimmerman's wrote:
"1] As for gatherings,Fountain Placeasa B&B business will not be permitted to host gatherings.
However,we personally like any of you and like the Ithaca College Presidents did -will be
allowed to host occasional small gatherings such as cook outs, dinners, or seasonal parties,for
our family and friends."
On the face of it, this seems reasonable but given what transpired in the previous appeal it
deserves scrutiny.One needs specifics on "occasional",on "small"and on what constitutes"
friends",For example, could "friends"be the Central New York Chapter of Ithaca College
Alumni?
Also in the same letter this is included:
"3] As for noise, both properties are located in the City of Ithaca and we, like everyone else,will
be bound by and shall adhere to the city's noise ordinance.Sothe B&B operation will not be
any louder than any of the other properties in the neighborhood and therefore shall not disturb
the neighborhood at all."
This matter of noise is a big concern for us.The College constructed a large paved terrace
outside their dining room a few years ago. {see map}It was used for large gatherings virtually
twice a year and otherwise the children would periodically play there.This terrace is adjacent
to our southern boundary of 3 Fountain not far from our kitchen,dining rooms and several
sleeping rooms.Volume of noise is an issue for sure but so to is frequency and time of day.Will
there be music on this terrace every morning for guests? Will there be music or other noise
producing sources every evening aswell? At what hours? Special Permits can and should come
with special enforceable restrictions wherever deemed necessary.
Summary,
1 The management of #2 Willets Place asin essencean accessory B&B to the proposed B&B
Home at 3 Fountain violates in fact and spirit the intended objectives of the B&B Home
designation.What is being proposed here is not a Home B&B.
2 The appellant's parking plan is not viable. The introduction of at least 6 vehicles piloted by
transient guests on a daily basis is not viable and potentially dangerous.There are certain
contexts wherein the additional population of transients cannot be safely handled.Willets and
Fountain are such contexts.
3 The character of the neighborhood will be most certainly challenged by this 'transience".
When former I C president Tom Rochon was packing up to depart Ithaca he said something that
I found to be a bit odd. He said: "Vince I should think that you and your family would be looking
forward to not having to welcome a new neighbor every 10 years."Who would then have
guessed that we might have to be welcoming in excess of 12 new neighbors on a daily basis.
The transience aspect of this proposal is a massive problem,for neighborhood character,for
traffic,for municipal services and especially within the context of these substandard private
lanes
If this proposal warrants any further consideration,given zoning issues like the variance from
1979 reducing Willets to a single lane with deeded assigned parking and aswell the
complexities of other easements and agreements not precisely defined at their inception,
surveys should be produced for both properties.There exist serious deficiencies and potential
misinformation in the plan presented by the appellant.
In addition,a truly viable parking and traffic plan,if at all possible, should be produced
addressing the significant complexities of increased traffic on Willets and Fountain Places.Just
stating that the proposal meets the minimum required parking,resolves none of the related
issues of the proposed owner's multiple vehicles,staff parking,accommodating traffic
associated with events, in the context of a single lane {a fire lane}of vehicular access without a
turn around.
Sincerely
Vincent Mulcahy
3 Fountain Place
~.
December 4,2018
Dear East Hill Neighbor,
Hello.We are Ashleigh and Ryan Zimmerman,the couple currently under contract with
Ithaca College to purchase 2 Fountain Place and its carriage house (2 Willets Place).
Please allow us to briefly share our story with you in order to hopefully help you
understandourpassion and love for these properties.Wearehigh school sweethearts from
Harrisburg,PA who both attended college in the area.Ashleigh is an Ithaca College graduate,
Class of'99,and Ryan is a Cornell University graduate,Class of'97.During our time here,we
fell deeply in love with Ithaca and the surrounding area.Ryan is a member of the Delta Kappa
Epsilon fraternity,which -like Fountain Place and Willets Place - is also a William Henry Miller
house that was built one year after Fountain Place in 1893.Ryan continues to this day to be
involved with his alumni association which is actively working with Cornell to restore and
preserve DKE's gorgeous stone mansion.Because of our love for Ithaca,and both Cornell and
Ie,we chose to hold our June 23,2001 wedding ceremony in Sage Chapel and reception in
Willard Straight Hall 011 Cornell's campus.At the conclusion of that evening over seventeen
years ago,we walked down tile hill from Collegetown to where we were staying at the W ..H.M.
Inn B&B.Along the way,we paused on the comer of Fountain Place and Buffalo St. and looked
at 2 Fountain Place,admiring it and said "if this place ever goes up for sale,we want to buy it!"
To someday own 2 Fountain Place became our dream..
In the years since then,we have grown our family by having four children of our own and
we have built successful child care and real estate businesses in central PA.Our passion is
historic homes - we want to do everything we can to preserve them.We live in a stone
farmhouse with a bank barn and spring house that all were originally constructed in 1825. We
return to Ithaca as often as we are able for homecomings,reunions,and various camps which our
children attend.When Ithaca College decided to put 2 Fountain Place and 2 Willets Place on the
market,we were at the perfect time in our lives to purchase our dream house and put permanent
roots in Ithaca,which feels the most like home to us.We are hopeful that our adventures -as a
couple,as Cornell and Ithaca alumni,and as a family ..can continue at Fountain Place and
Willets Place.We will be good stewards -keeping the properties maintained,respecting their
history,and keeping them alive!
So, it is in this spirit that we are applying for a Bed &Breakfast home permit on Fountain
Place"This will allow us to live there and also rent out four ofthe bedrooms.We plan to rent
the carriage house as two apartments as well.Thus far, the general public response to our plan
has been overwhelmingly positive (see the Ithaca Voice's October 19th online article and its
corresponding Facebook posts);however,concerns were raised during the prior variance process
(nowwithdrawn),but please allowusto nowbrieflyaddress those.All of the concerns centered
around and can be grouped into one of the following: 1)gatherings,2)parking and 3) noise.
1) As for gatherings,Fountain Place as a B&B business will not be permitted by the City of
Ithaca to host gatherings.However,we personally - like any of you and like the Ithaca
CollegePresidentdid -will be allowed to host occasional smallgatheringssuchas
cookouts,dinners,or seasonalpartiesforour family andfriends.
2) Asfor parking,bothpropertieshaveadequateon-site,off-street parking.FountainPlace
has seven(7) spotsandWilletsPlacehasthree(3)spots. So,the operationof aB&B will
notburden on-street parking and therefore will not displace neighborhood parking at all.
3) As for noise,both properties are located in the City of Ithaca and we, like everyone else,
will be bound by and shall adhere to the city's noise ordinance.So, the B&B operation
will not be louder than any of the other properties in the neighborhood and therefore shall
not disturb the neighborhood at all.
-In changing Fountain'Place's usefrom the Ie President's residenceto a B&B,we shall
maintainand preserve-the history of the entirepropertyas itis today.Thehighestandbestuse
forthis property is an upscale,premier B&B. Like any B&B,this will have a low impact on the
neighborhood.OUf guestslikely will beparentsof students,visiting faculty,and professionals.
Asfor WilletsPlace,it has always been partofFountainPlace,originally it was the carriage
house.Weand IthacaCollegewould very muchlike to seethe two properties remain together
undercommonownershipand operation.Ie felt so stronglyaboutwantingWilletsPlacetobe
sold to the samebuyer as Fountain Place,that it took Willets Place off the open market in order
to give the buyerof FountainPlacefirst rightofrefusal. Inthe 19808,Ithaca College renovated
Willets Placecreating three one-bedroom accessible guest suites (similar to Homewood Suites
with a livingroom,tiny kitchenette,bedroom,and bath).Although our original intention wasto
usethe carriagehouse inthe exactsame way,we willnowrent it out astwo apartments.
We will be good neighbors.We look forward to building a positive relationship with you
and treating you as we would want to be treated. We are not some faceless corporation or large
conglomerate;we are a couple who loves Ithaca. We promise to be good stewards of the
properties and we truly believe that our intended use of them is perfect and in line with how Ie
has used them for all of the these years.Not to mention,the City of Ithaca will benefit by having
two properties back on the tax rolls that have been tax-exempt for eighty years. We are not
looking to disrupt the historic East Hill,rather quite the opposite.We wish to own and preserve
a small part of it,as Ithaca is a place we hold close to our hearts.
If you have any questionsconcerningourplan,our application,or ourintendeduse of2
FountainPlaceand/or2 WilletsPlace,pleasefeelfreeto reachoutto usdirectlyatthe phone
numbersand/or e-mail addressesbelow.
Sincerely,
~~lO
AshleighZimmerman &
(717)592-8276
ashleigh@aatozz.com
Ryan Z1 erman
(717)592-8277
ryan@aatozz.com
OFFICE OF
BUILDING COMMISSIONER
1 DB E.D..ST GREEN STREET
ITHACAs NEVv YORK 1 4850
Janua ry 9,1979
TELEPHONE'272-171~
CODE SO;
Mr.Mark W.Haag
360 Ridgecrest Road
ithaca~New York 14850
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals
Meeting of January 8,1979
Appeal No.1223
Dear Mr.Haaq:
The decision of the Board was as follows:
Motion was made that the Board grant ,the area variance requested in
appeal number 1223.
Fl nd lnq of fact:
l )Hr.Haaq has conformed to the Bu ll d lnq Conmlss l'one r ' s requirements.
2)They have arranged f'o r adequate o ff'<s t r-ee t pa rk inq v\d th a 11 of the ne i gh-
oars,concerned.
31 The lot requirements are impos s i ble to comply wl th since the building was
placed well before current zoning standards were enforced.
41 The chanqe reduces the occupancy of tne bu i 1ding ..
Vote:5 Yes;0 No;1 Absent.
Area variance granted.
Ve~y truly yours,
t
.....,...-
Thomas D.Hoard,Secretary
Board of Zoning Appeals .
TDH:br
I
I
J
·1
1 08 EAST GREEN STREET
ITHACA..NEW YORK·1 4850
CITY PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT BOARD M E M 0 R 'A N D"U M
TELEPHONE:272-1713
CODE 607
To:
, FROM:
Peter Martin,BZA Chairman
Mic~Bottge,Planning Staff
SUBJECT:.Appeal No.1223,1 Willets Place
DATE:September 8,1978
As directed by the Planning Board,I have met with the parties
involved (Haag,Marcham,and Wiggins representing Whalen),and
the'parking problem on 1 Willets Place has been resolved.
It was also ag r e'ed upon that the BZA.~Q,stJ29~~_='§!'_f!~()P.on the
variance request until October.I have met with Tom.Hoard and
he will grant Mr.month extension on ~~prove-
I will be getting'ill t ouch wi th Chief Weaver to fo rma.Li ze having
th.e uphill side'of Willets P'l ac,e de s i.gnat ed a fire zone ..
Enforcement of this agreement in all respects will be the respon-
sibility of the parties involved~
The Planning staff reaffirms its recommendation that the variance
b~granted'at tl~October BZA hear~ng.
S~oulq you haye any questions about this ~atter pleas~do not
hesi tate to c on t ac t me ..,
MB:br
Att.
.:ere..
---MARCHAM
V
\1I1~WI5 rr~
~i~
~V\\rv~
f~
~oFL:"~~z~
I
I
1
1
<'Hz
$
H
Z-.
U>
H
l'!m
-
E;:
tJP.1
r-rX
Q.,
l.Q:J.lQ
<+
Permitted Uses '~-.
Other side at
least
Max.Req.
Jb of depth
Permitted accessory
uses
f-------·····
_~_f -·_·__..-----
---~--------
,
~!Req.Min.front yard--+_._--._-----_.--,.
l--J -One side at
tv least
~.J --J i Width in ft.at~,,-"4 I street line
_................-~......_.....-..,,..:...,.-------~....--""-~---...-
co No.,stories
tl 0'ITotal a:rea in~.I sq.ft.
~Off street &~I
loading
~Off street parking
~p.o\1i:rpments
Height in feet
l~
.j v.)
::....:
f~
!t~
1tJ'
t -!
)()
__~.......;;..--+------l ¥1
I l 11IF--'lvlaximum }b of lot
t
0 which may be covered
·1
!
x
~t-
~,I
\'0 t
:J
I
c-O
..b-
~l
I
1'~~
)~~
f
~~
-.l--(['0
~f~
~....-
G 0~(
I ~
I·~
--:;
~
t 'Ul
h
,
--\""
c»
~
~
CA5CADrLLA CREEK
4 WILLETS
r
-
Q
~
.A -H~·A;c;.
B-M,~PtCHIAM
c-r:TJ~hACA
CQ1(LLEGE
FfRE HyDRA~MT
.J 42iR.[
i r11B~lliJjf.'Jf~mei i
(/)
I-
lLJ'....J u,
...J
IZ'-t-=-t.---=--_~
.~
'S
:·B·il\,:~:I'M
I.,
'!
-H
",j,
PATIO
FENCE
2 FOWNTAIN
3 POUNT~d N
-~..-...------...-~-~,".........
------------,
12/17/2018 Letter concerning the 2 Fountain Place Band B permit application
Letter concerning the 2 Fountain Place Band B permit application
Cynthia Livermore [cjlivermore@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,December 17, 2018 12:50 PM
To:Anya Harris
Hi Anya,
Would you please forward this statement to the Planning Board regarding the public hearing for this application
tomorrow evening.
Thank you.
Cynthia
ABOUTA BED AND BREAKFAST HOME AT2 FOUNTAIN PLACE
Given all the assertions put forward in the previous use appeal,the financial calculations,the claims of
hardship,misstatements about time on the market to name a few,these applicants have a credibility
problem.While on the surface this proposal might be viewed as relatively benign,THEIR BUSINESS MODEL
HASNOT CHANGED -two properties,BOTH SHORT TERM RENTALS,parties,events,noise,problematic
parking and access (see their letter to the neighborhood)all soft pedaled but nonetheless there.In reality
THIS PROPOSAL ISNOT FOR A B&B HOME. It is rather,as they say in their letter to the neighbors,for a "B&B
business",Neither Home nor Inn as they are defined.What is one of these?The resulting change of use for
these two properties would have significant negative consequences for this neighborhood.This special
permit request needs to be denied.
Respectfully
Cynthia J Livermore
3 Fountain Place
https:llmail.cityofithaca.org/owa/?ae=ltem&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAMRIsSZOEVsS4n2MKDkun3eBwDjpccsYj4cR7Vd9alRbaQ2AAAAGlhzAADjpccsYj...1/1