HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-06-04t.
FILE PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
DATE APPROVED - JULY2, 2002 - APPROVED
0 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, JUNE 43 2002
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, in Town Hall,
21.5 N. Tioga St, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Board Member; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member;.'Kevin Talty, Board Member; John
Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:52 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Dan Walker,
Director of Engineering (7:52 p.m.); Michael Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra-
Lehman, Planner,
EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
ALSO PRESENT: Hiep and Mai Pham, 329 Pine Tree Road; Maria Andrews, 95 Brown Road; Hollis
Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road; Laurene Gilbert, Cornell University; Kirk Sigel, 223 Highgate Road; Don
McPherson, LA Group; .Bob McGuire, 46 Whitted Road; Jane Hammond, 18C Strawberry Hill Road;
Jeanne White, 18C Strawberry Hill Road; Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane; Anne Marie Johnson,
187 Creamery Road Brooktondale; Louis Biller, 925 Mitchell Street-,.Chris Tessaglia - Hymes, Etna NY;
Karen Edelstein, 397 Salmon Creek Road Lansing; Rick Lightbody, 190 Lower Creek Road #93;
Kathryn Prybylski, 847 Dryden Road #1A; Creig Christopher, QP Signs; Nancy Gould, 102 Happy
• Lane; Brenda Cartland, Cornell University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; John Gutenberger,
Cornell University.
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:33 p.m'. and accepted for the record the
Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on May 24, 2002, and May 29, 2002, together with the properties under discussion, as
appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the
applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 29, 2002. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is
hereto attached as Exhibit #1.)
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York
State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
Chairperson Wilcox - Larry, welcome back.
Board Member Thayer - Thank you. Its good to be back.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its good to see you. How are you feeling?
Board Member Thayer - Great.
' GENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
it
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road - I wish simply to bring to your attention that we had a heavy rain on
Monday, May 13, 2002. Once again, the intersection at Ellis Hollow Road and Pine Tree Road
flooded. It was specifically the Ellis Hollow Road section. It was sufficiently flooded, that my tenant,
who was trying to walk home, was fearful of crossing the intersection. The flooding was so high it
was touching the small set of utility boxes there. Neither she nor I have any idea if that becomes
dangerous. I simply bring this to your attention. I know it has been a recurrent problem. I know the
intersection has been re- engineered. Maybe it was the storm of the century and it will never rain that
heavily again or have any flaws again in this century. As additional requests come to you for
development in the immediate upstream drainage area. I ask you to bear in mind that the intersection
still is not capable of taking the current flooding.
Chairperson Wilcox - When the Town Engineer arrives, I think I will ask him if the County is aware of
the issues. Anybody else who wishes to address the board this evening on an issue or an item that is
not on this evening's agenda? There being none I will move onto the next item.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Collegetown Bagel Outdoor Seating, East Hill Plaza.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Could you give us a brief explanation of what you are proposing and if you are
aware of any environmental concerns?
Mai Pham, 329 Pine Tree Road - What we have right now is the seating inside. We would like to
provide our customer a chance to be sitting outside when the weather is good. We are asking to
have two tables with five chairs outside adjacent to the two windows that we have.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any environmental issues?
Mr. Pham - I cannot see now. The only concern that we have right now is because sitting outside,
if ... we were concerned it would interfere with the traffic. When we measure, we had up to 13 feet of
the sidewalk. For the table and chairs it is maybe protruding using up to five feet. So we have about
eight feet for the walk.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not concerned. Any issues, environmental issues, concerns?
Board Member Hoffmann - I don't know if it is environmental, but the one thing I was concerned about
was the hanging plants and where they would be located and whether they might interfere with
people walking by.
Mr. Pham - Again, I did some measurement. We have roughly about 8.5 feet from the ground to the
ceiling. With the hanging flowerpots, probably we use up to 2 or 2.5 feet. We still have about 6 or 6.5
2
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
feet above from the floor. It should be clear, way over the head of people walking. We planned with a
removable feature so when weather is not good in the winter we would like to move everything inside.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Conneman - I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by?
Board Member Thayer - Second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Larry Thayer. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by
saying aye.
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are none. There are no abstentions. The motion is
passed.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -055 - SEQR, Collegetown Bagels, Preliminary & Final Site Plan
Approval, 329 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
placement of two outdoor tables with chairs, and four hanging plants in front of Collegetown
Bagels (CTB), located in the East Hill Plaza, 329 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C," Hoang Mai Pham /Silex Management Corporation,
Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval,
and
3. The Planning Board, on June 4, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by
Planning staff, and application materials for the proposed outdoor seating and hanging plants,
and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval.
91
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above
referenced action as proposed. Therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an
Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
placement of two outdoor tables and chairs on the sidewalk adjacent to Collegetown Bagels
(CTB) in East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62. -2- 1.121, Business District "C ". The
tables would be outside during the normal operating hours. Hoang Mai Pham /Silex
Management Corp., Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - If there is a member of the public who would like to address the Planning Board
this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask you to please step to the microphone, give us
your name and address and we will be very happy to hear what you have to say this evening.
Ms. Erb - Thank you very much. I think it is a lovely idea. I have no concerns. I really do live in the
neighborhood and I look at this. I would just ask that something be stated clearly about what will
happen to trash that is outside the restaurant proper because Cornell in its wisdom has no trashcans
at all available on that whole sidewalk or most of that sidewalk.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Hollis. Anybody else this evening wishes to address this board on
this particular subject? There being none, I will close the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. and bring the
matter back to the board for further discussion.
Board Member Conneman - What about trash receptacles?
Board Member Thayer - Good idea.
Board Member Conneman - My belief is if you have a trashcan people put trash in it. If there are no
trashcans they throw it around.
Chairperson Wilcox - It doesn't solve the windy day problem, but I'm not sure anything can solve the
windy day problem.
M
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - I have not seen a lot of trash flying around in that area. They have been
eating outdoors at the East Side Restaurant, which is no more. They served their lunch meal outside.
Board Member Talty - I think the difference between Collegetown Bagels and East Side is that East
Side is more dining and this is more to go.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm not saying that I'm against having trashcans. I think it is a good idea.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would we suggest that one be placed outside in a suitable location?
Board Member Thayer - I would suggest.
Chairperson Wilcox - For the use of both the patrons and the staff. Hollis? If you want to speak,
come on up.
Ms. Erb - My concern isn't even that there necessarily be a trashcan outside as much as somebody
be watching and making sure that if things start to blowing around or if patrons seem reluctant to step
back inside; there is a convenient trashcan inside the door, but it still requires stepping back inside.
just ask that that be taken into consideration.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think putting one outside makes it visible for people to see it.
Mr. Pham - In reply to the question or concern, we have people working in our store. Very often we
do clear the table. It is our responsibility to make sure that inside and outside is clean. We have the
trashcan right next to the door. Normally, customers would help themselves and do the cleaning. We
always during the day.
Chairperson Wilcox - What is the board's feeling?
Board Member Howe - I don't feel strongly about one being outside as long as there are folks paying
attention and the trash is being picked up.
Chairperson Wilcox - Did we require East Side to have one? The answer is no. Anybody else?
Board Member Thayer - You mention that the flowerpots would be between 6 and 6.5 feet. I would
suggest that they be 6.5 feet so that I wouldn't have to duck.
Chairperson Wilcox - I will keep that in mind when we get to it. Would someone like to move the
motion as drafted?
Board Member Howe - I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by?
Board Member Thayer - I will.
61
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Larry Thayer. You propose that we add a condition that the
flowerpots be no lower than 6.5 feet from the surface.
Board Member Talty - The base of the pot.
Chairperson Wilcox - So that tall people ... is that acceptable, Rod?
Board Member Howe - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - If there are no further comments, suggestions, then all those in favor please
signal by saying aye?
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any opposed? There are none. The motion is passed. Thank you very much.
Just keep the pot 6.5 feet from the sidewalk.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -056 - Collegetown Bagels, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval,
329 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
placement of two outdoor tables with chairs, and four hanging plants in front of Collegetown
Bagels (CTB), located in the East Hill Plaza, 329 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C," Hoang Mai Pham /Silex Management Corporation,
Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency
in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 4, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 4, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate application materials for the proposed outdoor tables, chairs, and hanging plants.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
101
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval for the proposed use of outdoor tables and chairs as shown on the submitted
application materials, subject to the following condition:
a. The distance between the base of the hanging flowerpots and the sidewalk is no less
than 6.5 feet.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding a sign variance to allow one 53.8 ± square foot wall sign to be placed on the east
side of the Six Mile Creek Winery Barn, 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
56.- 2 -1.1, Residence District R -15 (barn location) and Conservation District (remainder of
property). Nancy Battistella, Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox - Who is going to briefly describe the project for Nancy?
Creig Christopher, QP Signs - Nancy wrote a letter. It read as follows:
"Our present sign cannot be seen until you are right in front of the barn. These letters will permit
drivers to see ahead to avoid quick turns on a busy highway and small intersection. I saw a similar
sign on a barn and it seemed so tiny and neat and appealing. The size is more appropriate with the
size of the barn. We rely on direct sales for 90 percent of the business, so hopefully it will help in
sales and cash dollars to the community. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy"
This is not a wall sign. It is only letters. What we are proposing is an 18 -inch high upper and lower
case plastic letters mounted right onto the barn itself. Underneath it in 10- inches high, "winery ".
Chairperson Wilcox - I have a picture showing the proposed location on the barn and a sample of the
10 -inch high letter.
Mr. Christopher - It won't be that color since the barn is a dark color. It will be like an ivory.
Board Member Hoffmann - Is that the color you are proposing?
Mr. Christopher - The color is more the cream color right behind you on the lower rail right across.
Board Member Thayer - So it will be the same color as the signs that are currently there that say,
"parking" and "enter ". That would be my suggestion.
7
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Mr. Christopher - What we have now is a sandblasted sign, which is so small that by the time people
are driving by its tough to read. We thought that if we put individual letters onto the building of the
barn it would be easier for people to see and won't cause a hazard as they turn into the barn.
Board Member Hoffmann - Now, the sign is only proposed for the east side of the building because
on the other side you wouldn't see it.
Mr. Christopher - Right. Mostly the traffic coming in from Slaterville is probably going 45 or 50.
Board Member Conneman - Is the freestanding sign you have now staying?
Mr. Christopher - Yes, it will.
Board Member Conneman - So this will be in addition. Everything else will be the same.
Mr. Christopher - Correct.
Board Member Talty - How are the letters affixed to the barn?
Mr. Christopher - What we do is that we glue it ... (not audible). The letters at the Youth Bureau are
just glued on.
Board Member Talty - So through weather type conditions they don't have a tendency to fall off.
Mr. Christopher - No.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions? I'm going to ask you to take a seat and give the public a
chance. If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening
on a particular agenda item, we ask you to please step to the microphone, give us your name and
address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. Public hearing opened at 7:49
p.m. There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and bring the matter back to the
board.
I was kind of hoping it would get painted on and look like those old barns, with unfortunately those
huge signs that cover a whole side. It is sort of nostalgic, but I don't have an issue.
Board Member Thayer - I don't either other than the colors as long as it is white or ivory. They've
already suggested ivory.
Board Member Hoffmann - I just have a slight hesitancy about it because it is so much more than we
normally allow. The little drawing that was supplied looks okay to me, but it is the principle of the
thing that worries me a little bit. I think we have been very tough with signs that have been too large in
the past for other applicants. It is a concern for me. I don't agree that the smaller sign that is there
already is not visible. I think it is quite visible and readable. Maybe people whom wiz by and don't
see it aren't looking. In that sense, I don't quite see the need for it. I don't think it would look so bad
E:3
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
either. I would have also preferred maybe a sign that was painted on. It would be more like what that
kind of sign usually are instead of these letters. I have mixed feelings about this one.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other comments?
Board Member Thayer - I think because it doesn't have a border as per say a regular sign and a
background that it is a little more acceptable to me.
Chairperson Wilcox - The maximum allowed sign in a residential zone is?
Ms. Balestra- Lehman - Four square feet. Very small.
Board Member Hoffmann - The sign that is there now is larger. It had to get special approval.
Chairperson Wilcox - I remind everyone present that the Planning Board is only making a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have final say. Would someone like to move
the proposed resolution? So moved by Kevin Talty. Do I have a second?
Board Member Conneman - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by George Conneman. Any further discussion? All those in favor
please signal by saying aye?
Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Conneman, Board Member Thayer, Board Member Howe, Board
Member Talty - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody opposed? Eva is opposed. There are no abstentions. The motion is
passed 5 to 1. Thank you very much.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -057- Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals,
Sign Variance — Six Mile Creek Winery, 1551 Slaterville Road.
MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman.
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review
Board, recommends and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request
for a sign variance for a wall sign on the east side of the Six Mile Creek Winery Barn, with an area of
53.8 +/- square feet, where wall signs in residential districts have an area limit of four square feet, be
approved, with the following condition:
a. The proposed sign shall not exceed 55 square feet in total sign area, as defined in the Town of
Ithaca Sign Law, and
b. The proposed sign shall not be illuminated.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
we
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: Hoffmann.
The motion was declared to be carried.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Chairperson Wilcox - During the persons to be heard segment, Hollis Erb talked about the flooding at
Ellis Hollow Road and Pine Tree Road that occurred three weeks ago. Do you know if that specific
issue has been reported to the County?
Mr. Walker - I'm sure that they know about it.
Chairperson Wilcox - I can't ask you to do anything about.
Mr. Walker - They designed it that way.
Chairperson Wilcox - Not purposely, though.
Mr. Walker - They built it exactly the way they designed it. I'm not aware of any plans that they have
to rebuild that portion of the highway.
Chairperson Wilcox - We should probably let them know of the concern.
Mr. Walker - They've been out. I'm sure that they are aware of it. If the public has a real concern,
then they need to direct a letter to the County Highway Department. It wouldn't hurt to send a letter to
Barbara Blanchard, the Chair of the Public Works Committee.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Dan.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Gould 2 -Lot Subdivision, 154 Indian Creek Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Nancy Gould, 102 Happy Lane.
Chairperson Wilcox - What a great address.
Ms. Gould - It is.
Chairperson Wilcox - You've been here for the last couple of minutes, but if you could provide us with
a brief overview of what is being proposed and any environmental concerns that you might be aware
of.
III]
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Ms. Gould - These are two houses that are currently on one lot. They are older houses. They have
been there for 20, 30 years or longer. We would like to separate them as we are getting older and
facing retirement. We would like to be able to have the flexibility to sell the front house if we could.
My mother -in -law, who resides in the back house, is going to keep possession of that so that we can
keep her close by. We are just looking for some flexibility.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you know when the two houses were built?
Ms. Gould - The one house was 1955. The back house was 1962 or 1963.
Chairperson Wilcox - The front house is the one that fronts on Indian Creek Road.
Ms. Gould - Yes. The back house has the ability to have a driveway put in from Happy Lane.
Chairperson Wilcox - Environmental concerns that you are aware of?
Ms. Gould - None that I am aware of.
Chairperson Wilcox - Members of the board?
Board Member Thayer - The driveway will not affect the trees that are on Happy Lane? There are
some beautiful trees there.
Ms. Gould - I can't say for sure that it won't affect any of them, but certainly there are many of them.
think we can put the driveway in without having to impact any trees.
Board Member Thayer - It would be nice not to disturb them.
Ms. Gould - We agree.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have some concerns and I'm going to staff and the Town Engineer. I have
some concerns because we have two lots. One is 25,000 square feet and the other is proposed to be
13,200 square feet and a septic system. That just seems small. It would seem very small if that
septic system should fail and another one to be located on the property. Whether that is a sufficient
amount of land area given that right now our zoning tends to require 30,000 square feet where there
are no public utilities. The new zoning would be over an acre if there were no public utilities.
Ms. Gould - We have public water.
Chairperson Wilcox - I believe there is public sewer in the vicinity or in the neighborhood.
Mr. Walker - There is public sewer up Indian Creek Road about 300 feet up the road.
Chairperson Wilcox - It would require the sewage to be pumped up hill.
11
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Mr. Walker - That is very feasible to do. The current gravity of sewer line cuts across at a point where
it didn't make it possible to run the sewer in through the valley.
Chairperson Wilcox - The house that fronts on Indian Creek Road, which is the smaller lot, should
that septic system fail and another one be installed the option of connecting to the sewer system does
exist.
Mr. Walker - There are quite a few lots along the lake on Route 89 that have pump outs that pump
almost that same distance at much greater head. The technology is there to do that. It probably
would not cost that much more or maybe not as much as building some kind of septic system that
would need health department approval. I believe Scott Anderson talked to Susan and expressed his
concern about the fact that you need at least 15,000 square feet.
Ms. Ritter - The requirements in the County Sanitary Code require construction permits of a minimum
of 30,000 square feet. If the property has public water supply, then the minimum lot size could be
half. That would be 15,000 square feet. They are proposing one at 25,000 square feet and one at
13,000 square feet. He had only got a copy of the agenda. He called me late yesterday afternoon. I
sent the materials to him. He wants to talk with his attorney just to verify that this was the case. He
was out of the office today, but would get back to us. He seemed to indicate that he would like to
have at least at this point some kind of condition placed on the subdivision approval that a variance
would be required and approval from the county health department. He is going to verify that this is
required and get back to me very shortly.
Chairperson Wilcox - John Barney, is that reasonable?
Attorney Barney - Sure. The question that I would ask is why is the line being placed where it is to
create such dissimilar lots.
Ms. Gould - We tried to give the front house as much property as possible when the surveyor
surveyed it, but there is a back storage shed between the two houses that belongs to the back house.
So he went as close as he could to that line.
Attorney Barney - When you say belongs to the back house, does that mean it faces the back house?
Ms. Gould - Yes. The storage shed is between and it faces west.
Chairperson Wilcox - Or north I would assume.
Attorney Barney - So it doesn't face either house. Is there some reason why that shed couldn't be
turned over and given to the front house.
Ms. Gould - It's got a lot of our stuff in it. We might be able to move the shed.
Attorney Barney - You are really cramming into the septic fields with that line.
12
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there a potential for the leach field could run over into the other adjoining
property?
Attorney Barney - (comments not audible)
Ms. Ritter - You probably have to get a variance. It would require the county health department to
come out to the site. It is not a given that you would receive that variance.
Chairperson Wilcox - It's a tiny lot for a septic system nowadays.
Ms. Gould - I understand your concern, but the fact is there are two houses there and they have been
there forever. It is not like we are asking for construction of anything new. We don't intend to build
anything additional.
Chairperson Wilcox - You have more leeway should one of the septic systems fail right now because
it is one lot. Once it is divided into two, you don't have that ability for the house fronting on Indian
Creek Road to suddenly put in a septic system and a leach field that goes over that property line.
You lose that what you could do today because that property line wouldn't be there dividing the two.
Ms. Gould - I think we have, but I'd have to get confirmation from Mr. Anderson on that land in the
front yard to put a septic system in. We didn't have that flexibility in the past when we were on the
well. Now, that we are on City water we have more flexibility.
Mr. Walker - If the lot line for the house on Indian Creek was moved back 20 feet, it would make it a
15,000 square foot lot. That would actually meet our R -15 requirements. Chances are that part of
the leach field from the septic tank is crossing the boundary. Moving it 20 feet would reduce that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would that bring up the issue of some sort of an easement?
Attorney Barney - You try to tell, but you don't know what is going on. It is a condition of our
subdivision that you get health department ... (comments not audible) You are asking for some rather
substantial variances. (Comments not audible)
Ms. Ritter - Is the shed that important to the parcel?
Ms. Gould - No. I think if you move it 20 feet back you're going to be basically almost on the doorstep
of the second house. Can you tell by looking at the drawings how many feet there are?
Mr. Walker - You'd have about 20 feet of separation. You've got approximately 40 feet. By moving
the line 20 feet, you would have approximately 20 feet. What is the side yard setback?
Board Member Thayer - It says 42.5.
Chairperson Wilcox - Forty feet is the side yard setback in R -30.
I,•WNTFII1M'MMI 1�1.'T:i1.[ zam
13
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm looking at the memo that Jonathan wrote, which lays out the requirements.
Attorney Barney - The side yard is 15 feet, but you can have an accessory building.
Mr. Walker - If you did move the line back you would eliminate the rear setback variance from one of
the parcels.
Attorney Barney - An accessory building is not more than 3 feet to any side or rear yard line.
Chairperson Wilcox - What is the board's pleasure?
Board Member Thayer - I would like to see it moved.
Board Member Talty - How about an alternative site away from that line? If you back up that line 20
feet, how about another part of the lot? Is there anything else that meets aesthetically? You could
move the shed to another part of the lot itself? I know this is a lot for you. You probably did not even
consider a lot of this.
Ms. Gould - (comments not audible)
Board Member Hoffmann - If it were to be moved to the end of the existing driveway, which I assume
is a flat area that would not be too difficult. It is a fairly short distance. You would have a base
prepared already for it. That driveway would not be used in the future, correct?
Ms. Gould - Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - If we move it back 20 feet, we gain roughly 20 by 100 or 2,000 square feet. It
gets us just over 15,000 square feet.
Mr. Walker - It gets it within the health department requirements.
Chairperson Wilcox - It gets it within their minimum, but they would still need to review it, I'm sure.
Mr. Walker - It makes no difference as far as the septic ... (comments not audible)
Board Member Hoffmann - If this were an attempt to clean up a lot of paperwork, it would be nice to
get it to conform.
Chairperson Wilcox - It can't because it is R -30, so it's never going to happen.
Attorney Barney - I don't know if it is a valid nonconformity. We had zoning in 1964. (Comments not
audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - A self- created hardship if you will.
14
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Attorney Barney - It is worth looking at in terms of trying to clean it up.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is it possible that, I don't know what the zoning looked like back in the 50s and
60s, I wonder if this was zoned agricultural. Would it have allowed to put two structures on a lot back
then? It could have been legal.
Attorney Barney - It could have been. I just don't know without going back through.
Board Member Thayer - If the cost of the new septic system and the cost of pumping and adding to
the existing system are about the same, could we put in a condition that if the system fails that they
hook to the pump system? Is that a possibility?
Attorney Barney - The problem is I don't think they have direct access to the line.
Mr. Walker - From the house that fronts on Indian Creek Road, they could run up through the Town
Highway right -of -way.
Board Member Thayer - That would be their expense all the way up?
Mr. Walker - Yup.
Board Member Thayer - You wouldn't bring it down Indian Creek?
Mr. Walker - You can't bring it down because you can't get stuff to flow up hill.
Board Member Thayer - It's got to be pumped up.
Mr. Walker - You'd have to pump it.
Board Member Thayer - I understand.
Mr. Walker - There was a thought at one point when the Orchard hill property was being subdivided
that if they constructed a sewer system there the Happy Lane area might be able to drain into it,
but ... (comments not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other comments from the board? Ma'am, do you have any more
comments?
Ms. Gould - No, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Consensus here? What we have or change it to see if we can get 15,000
square feet or at least minimum for both? That would involve moving the lot line more than 20 feet.
Board Member Thayer - The shed should be able to be moved pretty easily.
15
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that the better approach? Everybody seems to be nodding their head. Mr.
Barney, procedurally how do we move forward because we are in agreement that we would like to
see the lot line moved about 20 feet to the north? It would add about 2,000 square feet and bring that
southern lot to over 15,000 square feet. Therefore, at this point we could adjourn proceedings with
the expectation that a revised survey map...
Attorney Barney - Either that or you could give a preliminary subdivision approval subject to getting a
revised map for the final subdivision approval. The condition being that ... (comments not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - Nancy, can I ask you to come back up if you would please? The board is in
general agreement we would like to see that line moved about 20 feet to the north. That makes the
house numbered 154 makes its lot 15,000 square feet. The board is in agreement that that is the
best way to proceed here. We have two choices tonight. We can adjourn the proceedings and ask
you to come back with a new survey map that shows both lots at a minimum of 15,000 square feet or
we could grant you preliminary subdivision approval tonight with the condition that you come back
with a modified subdivision plat. The choice is up to you. By going ahead with giving you preliminary
approval, you come back with a revised map and we give you final approval, it signals to you that we
are in general agreement with what is being proposed with that change. All you would have to do is
come back with the revised plat.
Ms. Gould - Is that what you would recommend?
Chairperson Wilcox - It is up to you. If you want to walk away with something tonight, you could walk
away with preliminary approval and the condition is come back with a revised map.
Attorney Barney - The other reason for the preliminary approval is I assume you are scheduled for the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Gould - They told me to wait and schedule it after this hearing. They thought they could get it on
the July 15th Zoning Board of Appeals. I asked if it would be a problem if I didn't apply until after
tonight's hearing and they said no.
Attorney Barney - She could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but they would still need to have the
revised map. It would also tie down the variance.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you going to move the lot line essentially about 20 feet?
Ms. Gould - Why don't you go ahead and give me preliminary approval and if we decide not to we
won't be back. How's that?
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, if it's fine with you. Any further discussion with regard to SEAR? Would
someone like to move the motion in regard to SEQR, please?
Board Member Hoffmann - I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Eva Hoffmann. Do I have a second?
101
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Board Member Conneman - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by George Conneman. Bear with me just a second. All those in
favor of the SEAR motion please signal by saying aye.
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed?
Board Member Hoffmann - We should cross out final on that before we vote.
Chairperson Wilcox - Correct. You're right. It is SEAR for preliminary subdivision approval.
Attorney Barney - Your SEAR actually covers both.
Chairperson Wilcox - There are no abstentions. The motion is passed.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -058 - SEQR, Subdivision Approval, Gould Two -Lot Subdivision,
154 Indian Creek Road, Tax Parcel No. 22.- 2 -6.1.
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision
located at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22.- 2 -6.1, Residence District
R -30. The proposal is to subdivide the 38,362 ± square foot parcel into two parcels of 13,191
± square feet and 25,171 ± square feet, each containing an existing house. John G. & Nancy
1. Gould, Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on June 4, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by
the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Map of Survey Lot To Be Subdivided by John
G. and Nancy I. Gould, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by
Robert S. Russler, Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, dated May 1, 2002, and other application
materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
17
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment
Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
22.- 2 -6.1, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide the 38,362 ± square foot
parcel into two parcels of 13,191 ± square feet and 25,171 ± square feet, each containing an
existing house. John G. & Nancy I. Gould, Owners /Applicants.
Ms. Gould - If you do approve preliminary approval tonight, should I immediately apply for variances
or do I wait?
Chairperson Wilcox - I would ask you to talk with the Town planning staff. I think they would direct
you that you could then apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals to hear your variance request.
Preliminary approval is generally sufficient for you to then go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and
have them hear your appeal.
Attorney Barney - It will be a little tied to what your survey could do. You want to take the Zoning
Board of Appeals your final map. So if you can't get it done...
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - If there is a member of the audience this evening who wishes to address the
Planning Board on this particular agenda item, we once again ask you to please step forward to the
microphone, give us your name and address and we will be very interested in what you have to say
this evening. There being none, I will close the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Staff?
Ms. Ritter - Nothing additional.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted? So moved by Rod
Howe. Seconded by Kevin Talty. John, are you drafting the proposed language over there. There is
quite a bit of markup. The first item that clearly needs to be revised is to change everything from
preliminary and final subdivision approval to preliminary subdivision approval, including the title,
whereas clause 1 and resolved clause 1 and 2. Mr. Barney, are you still writing over here?
116]
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Attorney Barney - Paragraph one and two take the final out. Then the new condition is submission of
a revised subdivision plat ... (comments not audible) Condition "a" will become "b" ...(comments not
audible)
Ms. Ritter - I think we should just say any approvals from the county health department.
Chairperson Wilcox - The septic systems already exist. He just wants to make sure that is meets...
Ms. Ritter - I think it was the lot sizes. With this lot size increase, I don't think it will be an issue any
more. In case it is, it would be good to put it in.
Chairperson Wilcox - Those changes acceptable Kevin and Rod? Okay. All set, John Barney. Any
further discussion? All those in favor please signal by saying aye.
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. Now we
are all done. Thank you.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -059 - Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Gould Two -Lot
Subdivision, 154 Indian Creek Road, Tax Parcel No. 22.- 2 -6.1.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot
subdivision located at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22.- 2 -6.1,
Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide the 38,362 ± square foot parcel into two
parcels of 13,191 ± square feet and 25,171 ± square feet, each containing an existing house.
John G. & Nancy I. Gould, Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on June 4, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part
II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 4, 2002, has reviewed and conditionally
accepted a survey map entitled "Map of Survey Lot To Be Subdivided by John G. and Nancy I.
Gould, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler,
Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, dated May 1, 2002, and other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Wel
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision Checklists, having determined
from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the
purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -
lot subdivision at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22.- 2 -6.1, as shown
on a survey map entitled "Map of Survey Lot To Be Subdivided by John G. and Nancy I.
Gould, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by Robert S. Russler,
Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, dated May 1, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
a. Submission of a revised subdivision map showing the north line of Parcel A moved
north approximately 20 feet to assure Parcel A is at least 15,000 square feet and
showing the new location of the shed, and
b. Obtaining the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to final
subdivision approval, and
C. Revision of the subdivision plat to include the distance and bearing of the front lot line of
Parcel B fronting on Happy Lane, and
d. Access to Parcel B shall be provided via a new driveway connecting with Happy Lane,
subject to review and approval by the Town Highway Superintendent, and
e. Receipt of any approvals from Tompkins County Health Department of the septic
system arrangement prior to final subdivision approvals.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by this proposed
subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis
Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60.- 1 -9.1, 60.- 1 -9.2,
60. -1 -18, 60. -1 -5 and 60.- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of
two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 ± cubic yards of fill. The
proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins and
►K11
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
creation of a recreational trail, linking the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center
to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The modification includes reducing the size of the
northern field. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent.
Laurene Gilbert, Cornell University - I would like to pick up pretty much where we left off at the last
meeting rather than rehash. As you mentioned, I sent a letter outlining the conditions that were set as
a result of that meeting. I would like to go over what I feel are some key points regarding those
conditions. Starting from the beginning, there was a detailed stormwater and drainage plan that had
been sent to the Director of Engineering and a maintenance plan is included with this letter.
There was a truck routing plan that is addressed in an attached letter to Peter Mesmer of the
Tompkins County Highway Department. I had received word from him that he is satisfied with the
contents of that letter. Copies of the notice of intent and a pollution prevention plan were attached.
We do not anticipate on applying for overweight permits as stated in that letter. There was an item
"e" in the conditions that asked that we submit a landscaping plan showing details of how the slope
created from the new fields will be re- vegetated and stabilized including plantings between pond
number 2 and the Ithaca Recreation Way as well as a planted buffer along the southern perimeter of
the southern field. Our intention is to provide the landscaping plan and details of re- vegetation, but
we are appealing the request for a buffer strip on the east and west sides of the fields. We base this
appeal on two reasons. One, there is already a natural vegetated buffer on the west side of both
fields. Two, a hedgerow or plantings on the south side of the southern field we feel would interrupt
the topographic view from Pine Tree Road and do little or nothing for sound mitigation.
Item "i ", there is an integrated pest management plan and a cover letter, which were attached to the
pest management plan. I would like to add since we submitted that integrated pest management
plan, there has been further discussion between the Plantations Office and Department of Athletics
and our office, the Planning office to improve that plan even further. There has been total
cooperation with the athletics department on this. I am setting up a meeting this week for next week.
It will be done before final approval, whereby the athletics department will be meeting with a professor
of turf management, who was suggested by the Plantations, to work out a better integrated pest
management than what has been submitted. Item "j ", I just wanted to reiterate that there is no
amplified sound or lighting associated with the project.
The biggest change or condition for mitigation we made since the last meeting, which was not
included in the conditions, but raised by the Environmental Management Council, is an issue of
modifying the northern most playing field to include a retaining wall and fence rather than a sloping
edge. It was thought that grading the site and the location of sedimentation pond is cause for
encroaching on one half acre into the hawthorne woods. However, the assumption is true in part, it is
also true that building a wall in massive size needed to retain the play field, it causes much or maybe
more destruction as simply grading the area. Furthermore, a manmade retaining wall creates the
necessity for a tall fence thereby creating two vertical manmade visual features to the landscape that
would not be needed if the fields were graded to a slope. Therefore, we are proposing an alternate
solution where we will have reduced the size of the fields from 225 feet by 360 to 205 feet by 360. It
is a reduction of 20 feet. Also, we have relocated the settling basin to the southeast corner of the
field. This adjustment, as shown on the attached site plan, which is the same site plan that we have
up here now ... this is the field we are talking about and this is the area we are talking about. This line
21
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
that I'm tracing right now is the edge of the hawthorne forest. The last plan that we had had an
infringement of about an extra half acre into the hawthorne forest. In this one, the line of the
hawthorne is untouched. This keeps the construction activity out of the hawthorne area entirely.
The Environmental Review Committee commented on the future of the wooded area and suggested
the land be placed in the care of the Cornell Plantations. At this time, the Plantations are negotiating
with Cornell's Land Use Management Committee to meet the standards. They are also involved in
the County's Environmental Management Council in designating this area as a Unique Natural Area.
At this point I would like to touch on a few other concerns raised at the May 7t" meeting. It was the
issue of restrooms was raised. People wanted to know where restroom facilities would be located.
The intention is to use the facilities in the tennis center just as the facilities in the Schoellkopf Field
house are used for the baseball games on Hoy field. Please keep in mind there are no provisions for
spectators, no bleachers or seating for spectators. The population will be limited to primarily players.
Therefore, not as many people will be present as at a traditional spectator sport.
The other question was garbage. We will supply trash receptacles. They will be maintained by the
athletics department. How will the players and people using the trail interact with horses? We are
proposing to post signs at any point where horses and people cross that trail.
Chairperson Wilcox - What you have done is shortened the width of the field. Moved the
sedimentation basins away from the western side towards the corners a little bit. Has the grading on
the western edge of the field changed at all in terms of the slope as proposed originally?
Ms. Gilbert - No. The slope remains the same as it was before.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm all set for right now.
Board Member Talty - I have a question. When we went out on our tour of the fields. I remember a
number in my head of 120 feet originally from the edge of the playing field all the way into the
hawthorne thicket. Is that correct? It was broken up in increments of 30 feet. Am I correct?
Ms. Gilbert - Right.
Board Member Talty - So basically the change from that time and now is the reduction in the playing
fields of 20 feet. Somehow in my head, when I looked at those markers in the thicket, there was a lot
more than 20 feet going into there.
Ms. Gilbert - That is because of the sedimentation pond. That was creating it farther back into
the ... the location of the sedimentation pond was down here. That makes the difference. We moved
the location of the sedimentation pond to the corner.
Board Member Talty - So thereby shortening it additionally.
22
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Board Member Conneman - I want to thank Laurene for responding to our walking tour objections the
last time. I would still like to raise the issue about the bathrooms. Have you been to the bathrooms
that you intend to...?
Ms. Gilbert - Yes.
Board Member Conneman - Do you know how far they are?
Ms. Gilbert - I know every bathroom on campus.
Board Member Conneman - It seems to me that the one in the tennis center is a terrific distance from
those fields. First of all, you have to walk all the way around the site to get into it. Then, there you
have to an ... it is a long ways away. I happened to run into someone who was playing tennis there.
happened to know them. He said to me, "what are doing ?" He told me that they were overwhelmed
already from people who come in from the softball field. They are also overwhelmed by the bird
watchers who come in and use it before they look at the birds. There is no way that you could do it.
He said there was no way that we could do that, why don't you have port -a- potties of some type. So I
went over to the Plantations to look at it. It is an interesting setup that they have. It's got lattice
around it. It is 3 simple port -a- potties.
Ms. Gilbert - They actually do have one set up on the west side of the softball field.
Board Member Conneman - They do?
Ms. Gilbert - They do, so that is available, too.
Board Member Conneman - I didn't wander over there because I thought you said the last time there
were none.
Ms. Gilbert - There is one there. Knowing all the restrooms on campus as I do, I've attended baseball
games on Hoy field. It is a long distance also from Hoy field to Schoellkopf field. You just make the
trip.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think being on Hoy field and being out here in this meadowed area would be
different.
Board Member Conneman - I think so.
Ms. Gilbert - It is also with spectators. They have bleachers and people that come to the baseball
games, whereas this will just be the players.
Board Member Conneman - Kids, though. I'm a little uncomfortable with that is because I see how
the Plantations have solved their problem very simply.
23
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Ms. Gilbert - There is one portable unit that you weren't aware of. That is over by ... that is available
too. That would be very close to the fields. I do think ... I really haven't looked into it, but I can. I know
that there are facilities in the Equestrian Center also. That would be available.
Board Member Talty - Can I just make a comment? We are kidding ourselves here by even going
any further in discussing this because I don't know what statistically it be, 6 out of 10, 7 out of 10, 8
out of 10, there are no way the guys are going to walk out there. There is no way. Let's just stop
kidding ourselves and lets address the problem. If George made the truck today and he is telling me
it is a long ways, a 20- year -old kid is not going to go up, maybe a female, but never a male.
Ms. Gilbert - Maybe we can include in the integrated pest management plan.
Board Member Talty - Let's just tell it how it is. I think George has a point about addressing it like how
the gardens have addressed it. Maybe we should take another look at that.
Board Member Conneman - You are familiar with how the gardens have addressed it?
Ms. Gilbert - Yes.
Board Member Conneman - It is a very simple ... the lattice...
Ms. Gilbert - I think the only resistance to this is the fact that we are trying to limit the amount of
engineered structures period as much as we can. We want to try and maintain an open field.
Board Member Conneman - You also have...
Ms. Gilbert - We don't want to hide them in the hawthorne.
Board Member Conneman - The field house on the corner of Jessup Road and Triphammer, they
have bathrooms and that is the field where kids play. Why didn't you build them there? I mean I
know why, but...
Ms. Gilbert - I think we can take a look at that.
Board Member Talty - Or even add on to where they are in the current existing area. You don't have
to have them all over.
Ms. Gilbert - There are quantitative studies that we can do as to how many people we anticipate
being out there and what would be needed.
Board Member Conneman - Let me tell you the people at the tennis center don't want you. I stood
there...
Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin, taking up what you said, the bathrooms would have to be located very
close to the fields. I am assuming that the young kids would have to visually see them to think that
24
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
there is an alternative, at least for the males. The other problem is, and lets be perfectly honest here,
males will go into a port -a -john and many females won't. They will either go outside or walk up there.
Board Member Talty - The women will make the truck and the guys won't.
Ms. Gilbert - There is only so much you can do to control people's activities.
Chairperson Wilcox - It maybe appropriate for us to insist that there be a port -a -john or two in a
convenient place.
Board Member Talty - It is like a trashcan. If a trashcan is available, people have a tendency to put
trash in it.
Board Member Conneman - That is exactly my point. I agree with the trashcan because it's true. If
its there you put it in.
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva, you have been very quiet.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, first of all, I missed both the last meeting and when you did the site
visit. So I didn't hear the discussion, but I see the problem.
Board Member Conneman - I did want to congratulate you on shortening the field. I made the point
last time that soccer is played on all sizes of fields.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other discussion at this point before I give the public a chance to speak?
Once again, this is a public hearing ladies and gentlemen. Those of you who intend to speak, could I
have a show of hands? One, two, three, four, maybe five. I generally don't like to limit how long
people talk. So I'm not going to do it again tonight. I ask that you keep your remarks to the point and
if you can say what you have to say and be done with it that would make it easier for all of us here.
So I'll ask you to step forward, I'll recognize you as you raise your hands. I'll ask you to step forward
to microphone. You know the drill. I'll ask you for your name and address and then say what you
have to say this evening.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m.
Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane - I live directly south of the fields. I'm going to make the same
comments. I want the same things and resolutions. Do I have to go through this again?
Chairperson Wilcox - If you feel it is appropriate, and then I urge you to do that.
Mr. Ellsworth - Are you going to re -do the resolution?
Chairperson Wilcox - That will be up to the board. You know that.
Attorney Barney - The application is for modification of the previously approved...
25
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Mr. Ellsworth - We are talking about the changes. We are not rehashing the whole project again.
Chairperson Wilcox - You have that right if you want to.
Mr. Ellsworth - I came to this meeting to make be sure that was going to take place. I want to be sure
what was in the resolution before was in the resolution again. That is, even though they haven't
asked for it, I know they are going to be back shortly for these items: no lighting, no amplified sounds.
further feel the next project that you try to move ahead to, Fred, needs to be interlocked to this
project because that road is really miserable in the spring. The dirt road is full of deep,
numerous ... and there is going to be much more traffic there from this project. I don't want to have the
road project come in high and then not do it. Part of the approval for this project because of the
increase traffic of vans and buses, we spoke about before, a great percentage of the kids are not
going to walk over there needs to be interlocked with the approval of this project. If this project is
approved, they have to improve that road. Otherwise, there will be four times the amount of dust
carried to the south through the residential area.
Chairperson Wilcox - By road you mean the driveway and the parking facilities.
Mr. Ellsworth - Yes. I'm sure there are many others.
Chairperson Wilcox - Who would like to go next?
Chris Tessaglia - Hymes, Etna, NY - I'm a former resident of Ithaca. I want to first comment about the
bathrooms. I agree that there really should be some other bathroom facilities provided. I actually had
a couple of friends of mine out bird watching down there, elderly ladies. They came into the tennis
center to try to use the bathrooms there because it was open. They were turned away and told that
this was a "private club ". I might add that one of those ladies is a former Cornell Graduate. It would
have been appropriate to make sure that they would have been able to go in and use the facilities,
but being told it was a private club was stretching it a bit. I do feel that maybe some summertime
facilities be provided as far as bathrooms are concerned.
I had a question for Laurene about the height of the retaining fence, which will be going in on the west
side of the north field. I couldn't quite read it on the plans there. I would like Laurene just to provide
some information on that. The two last items: I would like to commend Laurene, PDC and Cornell
Athletics for their consideration in the field alterations and their efforts to minimize destruction of the
hawthorne orchard and the entire unique natural area there. I would also like to sincerely thank the
board for their time and their involvement on this and staff for helping out with this.
Ms. Erb - Thank you very, very much for reducing the size of the fields and moving the detention
pond and working on the integrated pest management so that we have less pesticides spreading
there. I really appreciate the hawthorne forest is being spared and that there being less conception in
overall day -to -day segregation of the area. I absolutely agree that there needs to be some sort of
even one additional bathroom placed near where the other one is within sight line to the fields but out
of sight of the neighbors. I believe I heard you say that the hedgerow you would not like to put up on
the south side of the south field because it will not be an effective sound baffle. I understood that it
would not be an effective sound baffle. I would still argue for it on the basis of a visual protection of
1401
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
the playing field so that the whole area from the Honness Lane looks out across and can still see a
much more natural area behind the barns than just to sit there and see the playing fields. Thank you
for your efforts.
Chairperson Wilcox - Was there one other person who had their hand up?
Karen Edelstein, Lansing NY - Again, I just wanted reiterate what everyone has said so far. I wasn't
aware that the integrated pest management plan ... was moving ahead as well as they are. I want to
reiterate that we do even with the settling ponds consider a really conservative approach to both the
pesticides that would be applied to control the grubs on the turf grass and also the amount of nitrogen
that is added to that. I think the original thought was that there would be around 200 pounds per acre
of nitrogen added. It seems like the standards seem to be closer in the lines of 120 pounds per acre.
So I am hoping that the plans do stay on that low side. Another thing to point out that fill is still being
brought in to level the fields and supply additional surface for the turf to be grown on. Pesticides such
as merit, which is commonly used on turf grass, are actually banned for use on sandy soils and highly
porous soils because of the environmental impacts of that. I hope that the pest management plan
considers that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else this evening? There being none, 1 will close the public hearing at
8:52 p.m. Laurene, from my notes, one question is the height of the chain link fence.
Ms. Gilbert - It is four feet.
Chairperson Wilcox - When we granted the original... when we were here the last time when we
talked about this, there was the concern about when construction should take place with regard to the
birds and their nesting and the birth of their young.
Ms. Gilbert - Where we left with that was that I was going to talk to the Lab of Ornithology about that
and I did. I talked... my conversation with him about how the fields would be maintained. To date as
far back as anyone can remember the fields are mowed early spring and midsummer, which never
allowed for that. As far as the actual construction date right now, we still plan on using midsummer to
late summer as construction. The point ... there are right now the way the fields are being maintained
no opportunity for... However, after the fields are built we will be mowing all the fields that surround
the playing fields late in the summer or they are open to when ever is the best time. The only fields
that they will continue to maintain as they do now are the fields that they do get hay...
Chairperson Wilcox - I don't think you answered my question. Karen, when should construction not
occur?
Ms. Edelstein - (Comments not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - So are we talking May and June?
Ms. Edelstein - (Comments not audible)
27
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - So if there is no construction during the months of May and June that would
deal with that particular issue. You don't see that that would have an impact?
Ms. Gilbert - No. The soil has to be dry for us to work anyway.
Chairperson Wilcox - It was pretty wet when we were out there walking around that day. Okay. One
more thing if I may, let's talk about drainage because... You saw a copy of a letter from; probably a
husband and wife who live on ...crest Avenue in the City of Ithaca.
Mr. Walker - I've seen the letter. It's been an ongoing concern. Primarily drainage from the
Homestead Circle area and seepage through the embankment.
Chairperson Wilcox - How does this proposal impact their problem?
Mr. Walker - This proposal should not impact it. It won't change it.
Chairperson Wilcox - It wont' make it better. It won't make it worse.
Mr. Walker - It won't change it. I mean ... if we get an event like we had, the high runoff event, it going
to fill up with water. There is going to be some seepage. The drainage ditch they were talking about
is basically from the Homestead Circle area, which is below the railroad embankment. High intensity
storms are still going to cause flow into those drainage areas. This project will not impact it. By
reducing the size of the fields slightly and reducing the amount of disturbed area, it'll reduce the
amount of runoff ... the increase in runoff slightly. We've looked at this a number of times. The
additional culvert that we put on the railroad embankment allowed the water to flow through without
ponding up as much. The debris basins and things that are here ... the maintenance should be more
reasonably taken care of because there will be more maintenance area. We are continuing to study
the whole East Hill drainage situation so we can minimize...
Chairperson Wilcox - I've heard people mention that the storm we had two weeks ago was a 100 -year
storm or 200 -year storm or 500 -year storm.
Mr. Walker - It has a less than a one percent chance of occurrence, of course, it could happen three
times in a week. That rainfall had a very low percentage...
Chairperson Wilcox - One percent would make it a 100 -year storm. Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - I noticed in your initial presentation and in the paper we received from
you, you say that you have relocated the settling basins in the southeast corner, but I don't see it in
the southeast corner. I think you mean the southwest corner?
Ms. Gilbert - There is one there and one there.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right that is the northwest and southwest corners of the site. Okay, so I'll
change that in the paper. I noticed also on drawing L2 where there is showing a cross section of that
field, the as cross section, that at the bottom of the much steeper slope, besides from having
U:3
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
narrowed the fields, there is a depression. It looks as if you are digging, essentially, a ditch along the
whole western edge.
Don McPherson, LA Group - I worked with the Cornell Planning staff to design this field as well as the
drainage study, primarily. The depression that Eva is referring to is a swale intentionally designed
towards that slope. So any runoff coming from the fields are diverted into the settling basins instead
of flowing into the hawthorne area. There will also be a hay bale and silt fabric dyke. It will be a hay
bale wrapped with silt fabric to ... so if anything starts to go pass the swale, there again, the water is
controlled and it goes into the settling basin. It is an extra measure to make sure runoff does not go
into the hawthorne area.
Board Member Hoffmann - I just don't remember that it was such a large and deep swale in the
earlier drawings when the slope was not so steep. Also, for the other field you don't have that sort of
swale indicated, at least I can't read that on the drawing for section bb.
Mr. McPherson - The first point, the swale is ... because we had a total of three settling basins, which
meant a shorter distance to conduct the water to... Even with that slightly deeper swale, the
hawthorne area will not be disturbed as part of the project. The chain link fence will be there. Then
uphill from the chain link fence will be hay bales and ... that I mentioned. On the southern field there is
no perimeter swale there because that runoff will naturally go to what is referred to as pond number 2,
the larger retention basin. So on its own, the water will already go through the control facility. That
might need to be directed there.
Board Member Hoffmann - The settlement basins, as I remember from before, were to be used only
for during construction period. Then they would be filled in I assume. The swale would remain.
Mr. McPherson - I think you are generally correct. The settling basin, their primary function is
construction phase for erosion and sedimentation control. They still will remain after construction.
The settling basins will still be a depression in the ... area, but will not be maintained as a sediment
basin because the runoff won't have any more sediment in it. They do serve primarily in the
construction phase erosion control functions.
Board Member Hoffmann - So one doesn't need to worry, which is what I did when I saw this that the
fact that this swale is being built there that it is going to lead to water running down the swale. I
assume from north to south in this area, in the future too, and perhaps create problems if there is a
big storm.
Mr. McPherson - After construction, the swale and sediment basins will remain, but will not be
maintained. It might grow into vegetation and things and conduct less water. It will revert to a more
natural drainage pattern after construction is complete.
Board Member Hoffmann - Could I have an opinion from you, Dan, about that...?
Mr. Walker - After construction, assuming that once we get vegetation the sediment basins... During
the construction process, we are going to be monitoring to make sure that they clean the
sedimentation out if there is a major storm event. Once we get to the point where they are starting to
•'7
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
revegetate, any silt that is remaining in there will have filled out with the natural ... will be allowed to
remain in there. Then over a period of years, there will be some; there is always some sediment that
comes out. Vegetation will be growing. They will be mowing it once a year or a couple times a year.
They will tend to fill in ... I think it will be looking very natural compared to what is out there now.
Generally, most of the water ends up in the same area. They are providing additional stormwater
storage. A diversion swale like that does tend to store just a little bit of water.
Board Member Hoffmann - Thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox - All set for now?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else? Staff, comments? I've got a couple people raising their hands.
The public hearing has been held, but let me give you the opportunity to speak.
Ms. Edelstein - I guess I misunderstood the purpose of those retention ponds and the swale. My
understanding was that they were going to be there to capture some of the surface and shallow
ground water flow coming off. Because of the highly soluble nature of nitrogen and also a number of
the pesticides, I am concerned about the impact of that on the vegetation in the hawthorne orchard.
The vegetation there has grown up under some fairly stressed conditions that make or allow it to
remain as a fairly solid monoculture of hawthorne. If we are going to starting to get nutrient input into
the hawthorne orchard in the way that they had not been previously because those nutrients are
following the ground water as it flows down grade, I think we stand somewhat of a risk at changing
the whole botanical characteristic of the hawthorne orchard. So from the plant ecology perspective
and also a conservation perspective, I would really again to urge you to be very cautious about the
fertilizer use onto the site.
Chairperson Wilcox - Specifically nitrogen, right?
Ms. Edelstein - Yes. If there were an engineering solution to accompanying that, perhaps maintaining
that swale in the settling pond to capture some of that ground water flow that would also be an
additional plus.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Was there someone else with their hand up? Laurene?
Ms. Gilbert - I think I have a simple solution. There are a couple of different things that we could do.
We can dredge out those sediment ponds occasionally as needed so that they still function as they
did during construction time. We can also...
Mr. McPherson - And if need be, going beyond the construction phase control of the sedimentation.
The swale from that southern basin could be extended to divert the water around the orchard area.
The natural grading is somewhat, primarily, headed to the west. Then the swale would conduct itself
to the central drainage swale instead of into the orchard.
Ms. Gilbert - There are two different things that we could do.
9111
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you.
Mr. McPherson (Comments not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - Usually there is always a negative with changing watercourses. It would
increase the amount of water flow between the fields headed west.
Mr. McPherson (Comments not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - Dan, comments within regard to that?
Mr. Walker - That is true. They are not altering the drainage patterns. It still comes to the railroad
embankment.
Chairperson Wilcox - Everybody is nodding their head. Any other issues that we need to discuss or
want to discuss this evening? All right. I think we have a significant number of changes we need to
make to the resolution. Let's see what we can do here. Would someone like to move the draft
resolution as proposed? So moved by Rod Howe.
Board Member Conneman - Second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by George Conneman. Harry, I will tell you for the record that one of
the conditions is no amplified sound or light to be part of the project. Harry brought up tying the
facilities to the resurfacing of the parking area. I see generally nodding of the heads. I think that
makes sense. Mr. Barney, can start writing and come up with the appropriate verbiage.
Attorney Barney - Conditional in which way? The driveway project to be concluded before this starts
or before the fields are operational?
Chairperson Wilcox - Before the fields are operational.
Mr. Walker - You wouldn't want to put construction traffic across a newly paved driveway, at least I
wouldn't.
Attorney Barney - They are talking about phasing these fields though, too, aren't you?
Ms. Gilbert - Keep in mind also the next project coming up is the pavement of the lots. If a field is
built this summer, it cannot be used or operational for a year after it is built. It has to settle so they
can't play on it. So if it is built this summer, it won't be operational until next summer.
Chairperson Wilcox - So that gives you time...
Ms. Gilbert - They are going to be repaving...
Chairperson Wilcox - So timing is not a problem.
31
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Attorney Barney - So if we say that it be done before the fields are operational you don't have a
problem with it that, am I hearing that correctly?
Ms. Gilbert - Right.
Board Member Talty - It's my understanding that these are one at a time. Is that correct?
Ms. Gilbert - Yeah, that was the plan.
Board Member Talty - So both fields have to be in or just one field?
Ms. Gilbert - No. If one if built this summer it can't be operational until next summer. If one is built
next summer until the following summer.
Board Member Talty - But the parking lot is to be completed after the first or after the second?
Ms. Gilbert - The parking lot will be completed before the first field is operational.
Attorney Barney - Even before the second field is even built?
Board Member Talty - I could hear what you were saying, but it didn't jive with what you were saying.
Attorney Barney - So you are comfortable before the first field is operational you will have completed
the paving?
Ms. Gilbert - Correct.
Attorney Barney - Even though you may then be taking construction traffic over a paved area?
Ms. Gilbert - Yes.
Board Member Talty - But that is in contradictory to what Dan just said.
Mr. Walker - It depends. The heaviest traffic would be coming straight in. It probably is going to be a
heavier duty... because that is where they are parking the horse trailers and turning the horse trailers
around. They are going to be a little heavier duty.
Ms. Gilbert - They have always maintained that the fill will be brought in, in this direction. So this
drive right here that is being proposed is heavy -duty truck weight type pavement.
Board Member Talty - The last thing you would want to do is have a brand new parking lot and
breaking it all up. Then you would have to be doing the same thing over. What I said initially was,
are you going to complete this after the first field is built? I understand that it's got to rest a year, I
understand. But you are not going to build both of these fields at the same time and that is where my
question came up. Do you understand what I mean?
32
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Ms. Gilbert - I think so.
Board Member Talty - I think I am saying it right.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can we move on? That no construction takes place during the months of May
and June. I think that is equivalent to a condition that we had in a previous resolution. Let's do what I
think are the easiest ones first. I did not notice, Laurene, are the trash receptacles and signs noted
on the site plans?
Ms. Gilbert - No.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, so a condition for final that the proposed trash receptacles and signage,
specifically in regard to the horse path, be noted on all appropriate site plans. Lets do the port -a-
johns.
Attorney Barney - Port -a what?
Chairperson Wilcox - I think that is the trade name.
Attorney Barney - Portable bathrooms.
Ms. Ritter - Do you want them necessarily to be portable or should we let them decide what they want
to put in there?
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, that bathroom facilities be provided in close proximity to the two fields
and that it be screened. The problem is we want the people, students, athletes to see them, but we
also want some reasonable screening.
Board Member Talty - They are going to know what they are. They are not going to be camouflaged.
They are going to find it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Some sort of appropriate screening whether that is plantings or latticework or a
combination.
Board Member Thayer - Are you asking for new ones or addition to the current one that is on the ball
field?
Chairperson Wilcox - I am asking for something closer to the southern... certainly an addition of one
or two or however many they come back with. I am worried about the southern field and the distance
that it is from the softball field and the Reis Tennis Center. I am not necessarily telling you one or
two; your job is to put together something that is reasonable.
Attorney Barney - We are making a condition for preliminary site plan.
KY.]
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Right because they still need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Changes to
the flow or redirecting... We have heard a couple of proposals. One to have regular dredging or
cleaning of the sediment basins located near the northern field. We have also heard about altering
the flows of the water that come off the northern field. Is there a preference here? Both? Are both
necessary?
Ms. Gilbert - Can we have the opportunity to look at that?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. Therefore, we might propose a condition that the drawings be modified to
reduce to the extent practicable the amount of runoff coming off the northern field into the hawthorne
forest and you will come back in your final plans with what probably makes greater use of the
sediment basins after construction or alters the flows. A planted buffer along the southern perimeter
of the southern field. We talked about how it would hopefully prevent noise. I think we all now
believe that its purpose would not be to in anyway to mitigate any noise on the residents towards
Honness Lane. Is the board interested in having that there as some sort of visual buffer or not? Is it
preferred to keep that open space, as it is, as natural as it is?
Board Member Hoffmann - I would like to see some sort of planting along that perimeter of that
southern field whether it is just the southern one or maybe both the southern and eastern one.
Ms. Ritter - Can I butt in a second?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Ms. Ritter - When we were out on the site visit we talked about this. I thought board members who
were out there decided given the way it looked that it was not necessary.
Chairperson Wilcox - There is a pretty big swale right there, if you will, then a mound.
Board Member Hoffmann - Are you saying that the field is not likely to be visible from the south, from
the residential area to the south?
Board Member Talty - I think what we said when we were out there was if you put some kind of
plantings in there it would almost look artificial. It would be like it was stuck there instead of a natural
flowing.
Board Member Conneman - To answer Eva's question, I think we thought we could landscape from
the residential area.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well then, I guess a visual buffer wouldn't be necessary. I think one could
plant plants in such way that it looked natural, too. It doesn't have to be a straight row of shrubs.
Chairperson Wilcox - This is an open field. It's a big open field.
Ms. Gilbert - Just to keep in mind, 9 months or more out of the year will be seeing nothing out there at
all. It would just be green all the way across field and the play field. I think that's what we don't want
9n,
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
to interrupt that. When there is people playing out there that is what we will be seeing. When there is
nobody there, it's just these green fields again.
Board Member Hoffmann - It seems to me that one would perceive the raised edges, anyway, as
straight raised edges of green. That doesn't look exactly natural.
Ms. Gilbert - It might look mowed like a golf course type field. It would still be an open viewshed
uninterrupted.
Board Member Hoffmann - I see what you are saying and I definitely wouldn't want the viewshed to
be uninterrupted, the distant views over across the valley to the other side. I don't think that would
necessarily would happen if one planted just very low shrubbery.
Ms. Gilbert - This isn't my role in this project since I am project manager and not designer, but my
background in landscape architecture, I really feel strongly about this.
Board Member Hoffmann - I can tell.
Ms. Gilbert - It doesn't have anything to do with costs or added contract savings or anything.
honestly, truly believe that it would be a better visual experience without plantings. That is my own
opinion.
Board Member Conneman - I have one other concern, nothing to do with what is going on right now,
Fred. These signs for the horses when horses come by. I think Cornell is going to take an awful
chance on being sued. Something, I don't know what you know about horses, I'm not an expert, but
horses get spooked. Kids kick balls and kids run in front of things. I'm not sure that the balls read
signs or that kids read signs. I just want to say to you that I hope you think about what it is going to
be like having kids and horses there at the same time. That's all, because if you get sued, I want it on
the record that I predicted it. It could be a problem. I don't know what you would do about it, but I
think it is a problem.
Chairperson Wilcox - Hello Shirley. It's nice to see you. Any other conditions or any other topics that
came up that we should address? I think we have the truck traffic between 8 and 5. Eliminating the
lawn mowing, the phasing and having to build the walkway first... anything else?
Board Member Hoffmann - Is there something in here about the maintenance plan? The grass
maintenance plan?
Chairperson Wilcox - With regard to the actual fields themselves? We have the management plan
here, which is referred to in here as "other application material ". That refers to the turf grass
management plan as well as the other letters that we have from Cornell, which commit them to do
certain things.
Board Member Conneman - It is sufficient to have the diagram show the smaller field.
9161
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I think that the fact that the resolution specifically references this version of the
map, then we're okay. Are all those changes that we made acceptable?
Attorney Barney - The one of no amplified sound nor light. I guess does that mean you have to black
out the sun and the moon. I think it should be no artificial or electrical lighting.
Chairperson Wilcox - That change is acceptable I assume?
Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Chairman? The routing plan for trucks, I mean they have talked to the
County about how they are planning to not use overweight trucks. How far do you want the routing
plan to be approved? My understanding is that they won't necessarily have an excavation site when
they get to final site plan approval. I can't really know what the route is going to be from the hole that
they dig it out of to where they dump it. All I know for sure is that they are going to be driving on Pine
Tree Road. Chances are they are going to be coming down Route 366 to Pine Tree Road. Another
option if it were coming out of Precinct 7, 1 suppose, they could be coming down Game Farm Road
and Ellis Hollow Road to Pine Tree. I can't picture them moving a lot of material from precinct 7, if
they leave it on site it would be a lot less expensive to do that. I am assuming that all fill would be
coming from central campus or those areas.
Ms. Gilbert - There is no identified source for fill right now. We would like to be able to draw from
projects that are under construction as long as the fill is quality fill that meets... I would imagine that it
would be from central campus, but there is an opportunity perhaps with the project that is coming up
after ours that there is going to be a quantity of fill removed from the parking lot. We need an entirely
new road base for that project.
Mr. Walker - That is all on site.
Ms. Gilbert - That would be a great opportunity. So some of this might come someday. It most cases
it would be coming from central cases.
Mr. Walker - You are not anticipating that you are going to take it from someplace on South Hill and
bring it across.
Ms. Gilbert - No. I can't see that.
Chairperson Wilcox - It still raises a question though that the draft resolution says submit a letter of
approval prior to final site plan approval.
Mr. Walker - That becomes problematic. If we have it prior to commencement of construction
activities might be a better way to do it.
Chairperson Wilcox - At that point they know where the fill is coming from. They have to submit a
plan and a plan should insure, as much as possible, that trucks use roads that are designed to carry
that weight, minimize travel through residential neighborhoods, etc. That change acceptable? All
right. Thank you, Dan. Anything else? All set? Ladies and gentlemen, anything else? Okay. All
those in favor please signal by saying aye.
KZ01
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Conneman, Board Member Thayer, Board Member Howe &
Board Member Talty - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? One opposed. Any abstentions? There are no
abstentions. The motion is passed 5 to 1. 1 thank you all. Thank you very much. I thank the public
for their input as well.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -060 - Modification of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Cornell
University — Precinct 9 Athletic Field, Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1,
60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Modification of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval for the
proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the
Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1-
9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes
the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic
yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention
basins and creation of a recreation trail which will link the proposed athletic fields and the Reis
Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The modification includes reducing the size
of the northern field. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in
environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, has, on March
19, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 4, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate for preliminary approval, plans titled "Stormwater Management Exhibit" (D -1),
"Layout and Grading Plan" (L -1), and "Details and Profiles" (L -2) dated 1122102, revised
5115102, prepared by the LA Group, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the checklist, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control
nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the Negative Determination of
Environmental Significance approved on March 19, 2002, is applicable and relevant to this
37
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
modified site plan proposal, since the modification involves the reduction in size of one of the
athletic fields and a reduction in disturbance to the Hawthorn thicket, but in other respects, is
comparable to the previous approval, and
3. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a Modification of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, as
shown on plans titled "Stormwater Management Exhibit" (D -1), "Layout and Grading Plan" (L-
1), and "Details and Profiles" (L -2) dated 1122102, revised 5115102, prepared by the LA Group,
and other application material, subject to the following conditions, and further, hereby rescinds
the Preliminary Site Plan Approval that was granted by this Board on March 19, 2002:
a. granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to Final Site Plan
Approval;
b. developer to minimize to the extent possible, truck traffic during peak hours of traffic in
the morning and afternoon;
C. that a routing plan for trucks hauling fill material to the site shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Director of Engineering prior to commencement of construction,
and that such truck traffic shall occur only on weekdays between the hours of 8 am and
5 pm;
d. submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from
county, state, and /or federal agencies;
e. submission of a landscaping plan to include plantings between pond # 2 and the East
Ithaca Recreation Way, as well as details showing how the slopes created from the new
fields will be revegetated and stabilized, prior to Final Site Plan Approval,
f. no amplified sound nor artificial or electrical lighting to be part of the project,
g. limit mowing activity for non - playing field areas west of the Tennis, Equestrian, and
Swine Barn facilities (but not the area south of southern most play field that is used for
haying) to after August 1St for the benefit of nesting birds;
h. if project is done in more than one phase, the first phase is to include the walkway to the
recreation way;
provision of bathroom facilities near one or both fields, facilities are to be screened from
the view of adjoining properties;
j. plans to be modified to reduce the flow of water into the hawthorne woods;
k. the parking lots at the Oxley Arena and the Reis Tennis facility be rebuilt and paved
before the first playing field is operational;
K %3
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
I. submission of details of location of signs, bathroom facilities, trash receptacles, and
other similar details as part of final site plan approval;
M. construction of the fields is not to occur during the months of May and June.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation regarding Special Approval to the
Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the
applicant;
b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project, as long as no lighting or amplified sound on
the athletic fields is proposed;
C. the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: Hoffmann.
The motion was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Cornell University Parking Lot Reconstruction Reis I
Oxley Centers, Pine Tree Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Brenda Cartland, Cornell University - The project that we are bringing to you tonight for preliminary
and possibly final site plan approval is a project to rebuild and pave the existing gravel parking lot and
access drive associated with the Reis Tennis Center and the Oxley Equestrian Center located on
Pine Tree Road. Also included in the project are improvements to the drainage system,
enhancements to the existing TCAT bus pull -offs on Pine Tree Road located south of the main entry
drive, addition of a sidewalk to provide pedestrian access from the TCAT bus pull off to facility and
the addition of approximately 8 to 10 spaces on the south end of the Oxley parking lot. The project is
located on the same site as the Cornell University Precinct 9 athletic fields, which you have just
reviewed. The parking lot design and drainage system improvements were coordinated with the
athletics field project and are addressed in the engineering report for stormwater management
prepared by the LA Group and submitted as part of the athletic fields project. That report was
gue
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
accepted by the Town engineering staff as part of the athletic fields project. The main elements of
the project are parking lot reconstruction and pavement and improvements to the drainage system.
The parking lot and access drive will be rebuilt in primarily the same footprint where the gravel lots
and drives exist now with two exceptions and those are both in the Oxley lot. The Oxley lot will be
widened approximately 4 feet and expanded to the south to add about 8 to 10 parking spaces. This
area here is the expansion and is being widened a little bit about 4 feet. The expansion and
additional parking spaces are a plan to alleviate parking congestion during large events at the
facilities. Although large events at this facility are rare, about 4 to 6 times per year, neighbors have
raised a concern about this issue at this site in the past. Expanding the lot to the south is expected to
have little impact on the site. As a result of the expansion and within a sufficient striping plan, which
right now the lots are gravel so they are not striped, the number of spaces will increase from about 90
now to 117. This includes properly designated spaces for the disabled.
The drainage system improvements will be those described in the stormwater management
engineering report prepared by the LA Group. Those include constructing swales, enhancing existing
detention basins and installing new catch basins and stormwater piping as necessary. Native soils on
the site are firm, heavy textured, and poorly drained. Although the lot is currently unpaved, the
existing surface is generally impermeable and historically drainage has been an issue at the site.
Stormwater management improvements are intended to divert stormwater away from the pavement
and to the detention swales and basins where infiltration is enhanced.
Landscaping is planned to be consistent with the existing scheme. It is planned to include plants,
lawn and trees. As much as possible, the site plan was developed with the intent to minimize the
removal of vegetation at the site. The drawings you have show us removing the large shrub mass
presently on the slope in front of the Oxely lot. That shrub mass is located low on the slope and in a
very wet area. Subsequently, the shrubs aren't surviving. They have been a maintenance problem
for the facility. They are thinning from the back line of the shrub mass. Although it is not necessary
to remove those shrubs to expand the lot, we would like to do so at this time because they don't
function ideally as desired. They don't grow very well in the wet location. We would like to remove
them and replace them with planted lawn and trees. The planted lawn and trees are proposed
because that is consistent with the rest of the site and with the front lawn of the tennis center.
Construction will be sequenced such that erosion control measures will be installed prior to the start
of clearing and grading. They will be maintained in place until the area is revegetated. We have
been coordinating with TCAT, Tompkins County Highway Department to minimize impact of traffic on
Pine Tree Road. Construction will be sequenced so that there will be safe and minimal impact on
traffic.
During the course of construction, materials will be stockpiled in the horse trailer parking area. It will
be possible for construction at both this project site and the athletic fields to occur concurrently.
That concludes my summary of the project. We think that this improves the site functionally and
aesthetically. We look forward to making these improvements. Thank you.
Ell]
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Standard question that I ask at this point, are you aware of any environmental
impacts resulting from this project? That can be both good or bad.
Ms. Cartland - As I've already stated, we think this will improve the site functionally and aesthetically.
Neighbors have suggested that the site be paved so that will be an improvement. I think the main
environmental impact relates to drainage and that has been addressed and coordinated with the
athletic project so that will be addressed adequately. That has been submitted and accepted by the
Town engineering staff.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, my initial question has to do with the size of the extension of the
parking lot. You said and the text mentions that the extension is to be about 25 feet to the south.
When I measure off using the scale that you provide on the drawing, it looks more like double that
almost. On the small map it is very hard to get an exact measurement, but it looks like between 45
and 50 feet. It is drawing L -1. I measured between the dotted line of the existing gravel and the
proposed new paving edge on the southern end.
Ms. Cartland - The drawings are correct. I apologize that there is a mistake in the project narrative. It
is an addition of about 8 to 10 parking spaces.
Chairperson Wilcox - They are the drawings that the zoning people go out with and make sure you
are in compliance with.
Ms. Cartland - It is difficult to get an exact count of how many spaces are added because the current
lot is not striped. We have to use an estimate of what a space is and estimate how many are added.
Board Member Hoffmann - Anyway, it changes to me the way that I think about it. Instead of 25 feet,
it is now much more. I really think my measurement is pretty correct. Maybe we could have
someone measure it on the larger drawings that were provided for the Town then we can get a more
correct measurement. The other thing that I have a problem with, which is an environmental issue, is
proposing to take away the planting of shrubs along this edge. Because as it is now, it conforms very
well with what people wanted when this was first built. That is a screen so that one doesn't see the
cars in the parking lot as one drives by there. It does a very good job of doing that. I don't know if
you have already drove by there and looked at it. If that is removed and you plant trees instead, you
will see through and the trees grow up and you just get the trunks. You get a crown up on top. You
will see straight through into the parking lot. There is not going to be any shrubbery shielding the
view of it. Instead, what is going to happen, at least if the trees extend as far south as shown on the
plan, the crowns of the trees will block out the distance views you have across to South Hill, across
the valley. To me, that is a very significant impact. Those views are very important and very special.
You mentioned as part of the paving you would improve the drainage. If the problem at the moment
is that it is too wet there because it is poorly drained for the plants to grow well, you are going to
improve the situation. It is going to improve the situation for the plants. They will be able to grow
better. I don't understand the reasoning why these shrubs have to be removed.
41
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Ms. Cartland - Well, again the reasoning for removing the shrubs is because they were planted there
to screen the views as required originally. The facility managers feel that from maintenance
prospective, these shrubs are not functioning as well as they could. You can see areas that have
thinned out on one side of the shrub. From the back you can see it thinning and becoming thinner.
The bottom side of that slope is very wet. We think that that is the problem.
Board Member Hoffmann - But you are going to drain it you say, as part of paving the parking lot and
then it won't be so wet any more.
Mr. McPherson - The drainage will be improved as outlined in general in the stormwater management
plans as well as better details on these drawings. The improvements are at the pavement level,
which is below the dogwood planting that we are speaking of. As Brenda mentioned, if you looked at
the Oxley building side or the western side of that dogwood planting, you can see it is becoming and
irregular edge. There are several areas where the dogwood have died back and now weeds and
grass are going there. That is what the managers are concerned about, the progression over time
and overall the whole planting dying back. The drainage improvements are for the longevity of the
parking, not to the drainage on the slope.
Board Member Hoffmann - But I can't see that it would improve the drainage in the parking lot
without, at the same time, improving the drainage on the slope.
Mr. McPherson - Well, it is because there is a 3 or 4 -foot separation between the bottom or the
downhill side of the plantings, again which is irregular on the downhill side, and the elevation of the
paving. We are improving the drainage down here. The ... has to do with the nature of the heavy
soils. It is not surface water drainage problem as much as an underlying heavy soil poor drain
condition that the plants are suffering from.
Board Member Hoffmann - All right, but I still think it would be improved by putting drainage in. Could
I have someone on staff comment on that?
Ms. Ritter - Comment on...?
Board Member Hoffmann - On my thought that draining that area for parking lot construction would
also improve the drainage on the soils above it where these shrubs are growing so that they would
grow better.
Mr. Walker - The drainage for the parking lot is basically going to take the subsurface water
underneath the pavement area ... the slope. If there is a lot of water moving through that slope it is not
going to pick it up until it gets to the parking area itself.
Board Member Hoffmann - It says that it is a slope. It will move down to the drainage.
Mr. Walker - It depends on the soils. If it is a fairly tight soil, it's not draining the soil deeply. It's
running off the surface. That is the subsoil situation... they took the topsoil off when they built...
42
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - I can't imagine that the plants would look as good as they do today, and
they have been there for a while. They have been there since 1986.
Ms. Ritter - You think they look nice, though? I drove by today and I don't know if I like the way they
work.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you an engineer or a landscape architect?
Mr. McPherson - By license, landscape architect.
Chairperson Wilcox - Good. Instead of the dogwoods, what would work there that would screen the
parking area, remain reasonably low and survive in those wet conditions or thrive in the wet
conditions.
Mr. McPherson - That is a good question because typically dogwoods are a moist soil plant. You'll
see them growing in meadows and things. If the dogwoods are failing, off the top of my head I am
not sure what would succeed. As Dan pointed out, the drainage improvements ... an under drain to
keep those heavy water retained in the heavy soil from seeping under the pavement, thus
compromising the pavement integrity. I'm not sure what species would do better than dogwoods.
Chairperson Wilcox - We want something there I think that screens the parking lot from the road
serving the same purpose that the existing dogwoods do, but that will survive or even thrive in those
conditions. I think the screening is important. It was important in 1986 when it was originally
approved. I think it is important now. If the dogwoods are not working, then we either need to drain it
better, change the soil or find something else that will serve the purpose of screening and stay
reasonably low.
Board Member Talty - Has this problem been isolated to a water issue with the plants?
Ms. Cartland - Water and maintenance. I think we can say that we selected the maple trees that we
show in the planting plan to match the character of the area, not necessarily to provide a full screen of
the parking lot. We can revisit our planting plan and look at that again.
Chairperson Wilcox - I got nods around the table. Any other environmental issues or concerns?
Eva? Everybody else is sort of nodding their head.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think that paving the parking areas and roads is a good idea. I don't like
to see it expanded. I especially don't like to see it expanded as much as it turns out it is going to be
now according to the drawing if the drawing is the valid information rather than the figures that we
were given in the text. I don't... somehow the things that are happening on this site don't have a good
track record of giving us good, reliable information, do they, lately. Things like this need to be
checked before they come here. We shouldn't have to check it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Let's bring up the bus pull -offs right now as part of the environmental review so
everybody is aware of it. You had a conversation with?
E91
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Ms. Ritter - The bus shelter is not going to be part of this plan. It will be coming up later. We need to
work out amongst the Town because we maintain the walkway there as well the County's concerns
as well as what Cornell wants. We couldn't quite find ... we still need to work out an arrangement.
Maybe it might work that maybe they could move the fencing back a little bit.
Chairperson Wilcox - You and I talked earlier today. There was some concern about the walkway,
the bus pull -off and therefore, congestion, the buses, the pedestrians and everything else going on.
Ms. Ritter - A few things need to be worked out. We want to see what else can be done. So the bus
shelter is not part of this plan. The bus pull -offs are and the shelter is not.
Board Member Hoffmann - I have a little bit concerned about the bus pull -offs and all that, too, in light
of the fact that the County is now having financial problems. I just heard on the radio recently that the
County is going to be re- evaluating the usage on the different routes. Maybe some of the routes are
not going to be remained. Maybe even this one. Maybe it is a good idea to try to find out a little bit
more what the County's thinking is about whether this bus route...
Ms. Ritter - Eva, this is a very popular bus route. I've used this bus. This route would not be taken
away. This bus sometimes is full. It is just loaded with people. I am sure it is not going to be taken
away.
Mr. Walker - Plus, we are working on with the Pew Trail, we've got the transit plaza under
construction there and that will provide an opportunity for people to walk down for Eastern Heights to
this same bus route. Dwight Mengle is very enthusiastic about the bus pull -offs there and the shelters
that we are proposing. I think this is...
Board Member Hoffmann - That is encouraging to hear because I got quite concerned when I heard
this news.
Chairperson Wilcox - We should also point out that much of the transportation money that the County
receives comes from the Federal government, not necessarily because we need it but because we
are an urbanized area and therefore are entitled to these funds. Therefore, we receive them. If there
is no further discussion with regard to SEAR, would someone like to move the SEQR motion? So
moved by Rod Howe. Do I have a second?
Board Member Thayer - Second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Larry Thayer. All set? All those in favor please signal by saying
aye.
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are none. The motion is passed unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:49 p.m.
.,
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -061 - SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell
University Parking Lot Reconstruction — Reis / Oxley Centers, Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -8.2 and 60- 1 -9.1.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
reconstruction of the Reis Tennis Center and Oxley Equestrian Center parking lots and
access drives, located off Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -8.2 and
60- 1 -9.1, Residence District R -30. The project involves rebuilding and paving the
existing gravel parking lots and access drives, improvements to the stormwater
drainage system, the addition of a sidewalk, and enhancements to the existing TCAT
bus pull -off on Pine Tree Road. The Oxley Equestrian Center parking lot will be slightly
widened. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Cartland, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on June 4, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Site Preparation Plan" (L -1), "Layout and Materials Plan" (L -2),
"Grading and Drainage Plan" (L -3), "Planting Plan" (L -4), and "Site Details" (L -5), dated 511102,
prepared by the LA Group, and other application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act
for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
reconstruction of the Reis Tennis Center and Oxley Equestrian Center parking lots and access
M1
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
drives, located off Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -8.2 and 60- 1 -9.1,
Residence District R -30. The project involves rebuilding and paving the existing gravel
parking lots and access drives, improvements to the stormwater drainage system, the
addition of a sidewalk, and enhancements to the existing TCAT bus pull -offs on Pine Tree
Road, including a new bus shelter. The Oxley parking lot will be slightly widened. Cornell
University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Cartland, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen, if there is a member of the public who wishes to address
the Planning Board this evening on the this particular agenda item, we once again ask you to please
step to the microphone, give us your name and address and we will be very happy to hear what you
have to say.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m.
Ms. Erb - This is a lovely viewscape from Pine Tree Road out across the valley right now. The farther
out this comes, it kills that viewscape. We already have the viewscape compromised of what we
used to have by the additions of things like the ball field out here. For me, it is very disconcerted that
a little bit wider, maybe its 25 feet, maybe its 45 or 50 feet coming farther and farther out this way. It
really is a lovely viewscape right now.
My second concern is it seems to me that the plantings aren't working well doesn't obviate at all the
need for us to still have the screening. On my own property, I even had to build boxes to put my
shrubbery in because I couldn't plant them in the shale and the clay. There are solutions it seems to
me other than deciding than we don't like it. It is 16 years later we can all forget about the original
agreement and just rip them out and put in something else.
The third problem is ... I'm certainly quite comfortable with everything being paved. I understand the
need for that especially for the benefit of the neighbors to the south and west of the dust issue. I
certainly understand that. I am a little unclear, or rather; I am frankly worried that it seems to me that
we are going into a series of enlargements of this lot without a clear statement of what the lot is going
to need. Earlier this spring, there was apparently an activity, a small... not the mustang sales or
anything like that, but something was going on. There was something at the baseball field. I don't
know what was or what was not going on at the Oxley Arena. The Oxely Arena parking lot was filled.
The Reis Tennis Court's parking lot was filled. There was a large bus parked across the doorway of
the Reis Tennis Court. There were two minivans pulled off down by the baseball fields. I counted 19
additional vehicles not on gravel that were pulled off and parked. That is before they had the new
athletic fields. I am not clear if I heard 95 parking spaces going to 107 or 117, but that barely
accommodates what I counted just very casually on a Saturday earlier this year. I would simply make
that statement.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else wish to address the Planning Board this evening? There being
none, 1 will close the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. and bring the matter back to the board.
Ms. Cartland - In response to the comments just made, I just want to point out again about the
plantings. We had proposed to place the trees higher on the slope. The reason we proposed that is
because we suspect that the water problem doesn't exist there or it won't be as bad there. So, that is
E101
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
the reason for putting the trees there rather than low on the slope where the shrubs are now. Again,
we will look at the possibility of screening the views from the lot in addition to the trees that are shown
there or instead of perhaps some of the trees that are on the south end of the lot.
With regards to the parking, the athletics fields project was presented at preliminary planning an early
meeting. The Town Planning Board asked the athletics department to do a carpooling study as part
of that project. Cornell did that parking study. We coordinated our parking lot project with that study
to incorporate the findings. We think that between the expansion, which adds 8 to 10 spaces and
with the efficient striping plan which again, the lots are not striped and the Oxley lot is narrow and
cars are not parking as efficiently as they could in the lot, we have gone from 90 to 117 spaces.
Effectively, that is probably a larger gain because people aren't parking efficiently in the gravel lots
now. Also, we are planning to assign the horse trailer parking lot as event overflow parking and leave
the gates open during public events and make that easily available parking. There is enough space
in that horse overflow parking for approximately 100 cars. We will make that better accessible in the
future. Hopefully, between these three elements we have addressed adequate parking at the facility.
Chairperson Wilcox - The overflow area is gravel right now and would remain gravel.
Ms. Cartland - Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann - That is a huge parking area ... the one in the back there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Where the trailers park and...
Board Member Hoffmann - So, that is one of the reasons why I feel the expansion of the parking lot in
front of the Oxley building is not really necessary if they can improve the number of cars they can put
in there by striping it after they pave it, I am sure the extra 8 or 9 cars that they could fit in there could
instead go in a better laid out rear parking lot. For the few events they have where they have lots of
cars that would be sufficient. I really feel that these athletic facilities are located in a residential area.
There are residential areas all around. I don't want to see it expand piece by piece both with different
athletic facilities as well as with parking. We gave permission initially for the polo barns and with the
parking associated with that. Then came the tennis facility and then came the field north of the tennis
facility. I always forget what that is called. Now, the other two fields. Bit by bit more is coming. I
think enough is enough. I don't want to see more parking and the possibility for expanding even more
of these athletic facilities in a place where I feel they don't belong. That is one of my reasons for not
wanting to have any more.
Board Member Conneman - I think parking is a problem. The question is does the athletic
department ever consider that you might have several events going on at the same time. I mean you
have a tennis tournament, you have a squash tournament, you have a softball field, you have an
equestrian center. There could be a lot of cars there. What is the rule about parking along Pine Tree
Road? Can you do that?
Attorney Barney - (comments not audible)
47
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Board Member Conneman - I would agree. I happened to come passed the same week or the same
event or one event where there were cars parked all over. I was surprised.
Board Member Hoffmann - That doesn't have to happen. Events don't happen that often in these
facilities. If there was just some scheduling going on so that they had one event at a time then one
didn't need so much parking. Why do they have to be events going on in both of these big places at
once as well as softball game and whatever else might happen? I think if more planning went into the
scheduling, there wouldn't be parking problems.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is possible to schedule out conflicts as much as is reasonable. What happens
if the Cornell polo team is in some special event or what if the women's softball team makes the ivy
league, or ECAC or NCCA tournament or something like that? That is where your scheduling gets
difficult. I also know Cornell wouldn't come in here and building more parking spaces than they
needed. It doesn't make any sense on spending money on something you don't need. George,
you're laughing.
Board Member Conneman - I'm laughing because they are eliminating plants.
Chairperson Wilcox - There is some concern on the part of some people that it may not be enough
parking space given the peak demand. There is concern on the part of other people that we are
building too many parking spaces. Maybe they are in the middle some place.
Board Member Conneman - I think Eva and Hollis's point is somewhat the same. If the point that are
you going add things piece by piece, are you going to ruin whatever views there are piece by piece?
That is a concern of all of us. I don't know what you do about it. That is an issue.
Chairperson Wilcox - Maybe the question is if this board is going to allow it piece by piece.
Board Member Conneman - That is true.
Board Member Thayer - It appears we are.
Chairperson Wilcox - To date we have to some extent, this board and other boards.
Board Member Hoffmann - I can't... its enough.
Board Member Thayer - Well, they do need the parking.
Ms. Gilbert - Just some of the issues you are discussing... well to back up a little bit, back in 1997 the
Town requested from Cornell before the softball field was built that we draft a comprehensive plan of
the area, which we did. It was done by Susacki & Associates. We presented it to the Town. In that
plan it showed much more development than we have gone towards. It showed 3 athletic fields, a
changing facility, lighting, and a bigger expanded parking lot than what we are proposing now. We
have reduced. We haven't increased what we were considering using the area for since 1997.
Board Member Conneman - Did this board approve that?
L1:3
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Ms. Gilbert - It was not for approval. It was for submission. One other thing that I wanted to point out
is that this area over here where the extra parking spaces are being added, this building sits down
below. This parking lot sits down below. This area here is much higher than this area here. They
are cutting into the bank in order to get the parking. So there is not going to be parking sticking out in
this viewshed. It is going to be down below...
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Anybody else at this point? Looking on the maps or the site plans
that we were provided I'm looking for the bus shelters. Can someone?
Ms. Ritter - Yes. On L- 2 ... look at the bus turnouts on the western side. It says concrete bus stop
pad.
Chairperson Wilcox - That is the shelter.
Ms. Ritter - That's right. That is tentative. It may not end up being in that location. It needs to be
worked out.
Chairperson Wilcox - My point being that in the draft resolution we have conditions 2 b and c with
regard to the bus shelter.
Ms. Ritter - We will need to eliminate that.
Chairperson Wilcox - We will probably need to add a condition to eliminate the bus shelter from the
drawings.
Mr. Smith - Condition d can be modified...
Chairperson Wilcox - Lets not get to far ahead. I just want to be clear on that. If there is no further
discussion at this point...
Board Member Hoffmann - It seems to me if we are going to cut out some consideration of the bus
shelter, there is a letter from the County in here, too, about the bus shelter. It might be a problem.
This is just a preliminary site plan approval... no it is preliminary and final. Maybe we should just
consider doing preliminary approval tonight because we don't have the information we need.
Chairperson Wilcox - What are we missing?
Board Member Hoffmann - We don't have the information for the bus shelters.
Chairperson Wilcox - The bus shelters are being eliminated from the plan totally.
Ms. Ritter - They are going to have one later. I am not even sure that it would need to come to the
Town. It wouldn't need a building permit because it is serving a municipal purpose.
•7
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Ms. Cartland - We originally included the bus shelter pad as part of the project because it was
convenient to do so while we were on site doing construction. It was convenient for TCAT to come
along afterwards and install a bus shelter. We would like to see a bus shelter at this location. TCAT
has a shelter to put at this location, but as Sue explained earlier, we weren't able to decide on the
best location for the shelter here as part of this project on this project schedule. We have been
working with TCAT, Tompkins County Highway Department and Planning Staff and will continue to
work with those groups to identify the best location for the shelter and try to get one in this location,
but plan to do that outside and separate from this project
Board Member Hoffmann - Does that also mean you are eliminating the walkways that are shown on
you plans that were to go to the bus pull -offs and shelters?
Ms. Cartland - No. We will leave the sidewalks. They will be there.
Chairperson Wilcox - The sidewalks are there. The bus pull -off areas are there. It is just the shelters.
Therefore, that eliminates the county's concern with the 239 review because there aren't any shelters.
In fact, I think the reason for deleting the shelters is to address some of the issues pointed out by the
county planning department as part of their 239 review.
Mr. Walker - And the Town.
Chairperson Wilcox - And the Town and Cornell University and everybody else. Would someone like
to move the motion as drafted? So moved by the chair. Do I have a second? Rod Howe. All right.
So I guess conditions "b" and "c" would be removed. A new condition would have to be added, which
is to modify plans to remove the bus shelter /concrete pad.
Ms. Ritter - I guess to revise the plans.
Chairperson Wilcox - To revise all the plans, all the sheets as necessary to remove the bus
shelter /concrete pad. It is really shown as a concrete pad, not as a shelter. And, I think it was the
sense of the board that the site plan should be modified to include landscaping along the eastern side
of the Oxley parking lot that screens the parking lot from Pine Tree Road in a manner similar to the
way the dogwoods do today. Catch that? Such landscaping to be approved by the Director of
Planning.
Attorney Barney - Prior to?
Chairperson Wilcox - Prior to issuance of a building permit.
Board Member Hoffmann - Excuse me for interrupting. That is another reason why maybe we should
not make this final approval because don't we want to see that. Don't we want to see the correct
language about the size of the parking lot?
Chairperson Wilcox - I think the drawing tells us how big the parking lot extension is.
Board Member Hoffmann - In spite of the fact that the text says something else?
671]
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - This is what the zoning enforcement officer is going to go out there with and say
or the Town planner is going to go out there and say did you build what you said you would build and
what was approved. This is what the architect, the contractor and everybody else is going to work
from.
Board Member Hoffmann - You think it is appropriate that we delegate the landscaping to staff
instead of making the decision ourselves?
Chairperson Wilcox - It is an interesting decision. I think the planning staff certainly knows what we
want. Something that is equivalent to what is there now, but is healthy, screens the Oxley parking
area, is relatively low so it doesn't grow high and block the views. I am confident that they know what
to do. If you are not, that is fine, too. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with any of the rest of
us.
Board Member Hoffmann - I have a problem with delegating too many things to staff when it is really
our responsibility to make the decisions. That is why I would prefer to see the plans really. To me
this is very important that we preserve viewshed and that we screen the parking lot.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think the rest of the board agrees with you on that one.
Attorney Barney - The condition is to modify to show landscaping along the east side of the Oxley
Arena parking lot substantially similar to the existing landscaping to be approved by the Director of
Planning prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its purpose is to screen the parking lot from Pine Tree Road and in addition to
preserve or not affect the existing viewshed.
Board Member Hoffmann - It is not just the view of the building. It is the view across the valley.
Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, you are clear on what we want?
Ms. Ritter - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Jon will probably delegate it to you anyway. Those changes are acceptable to
me. Are they acceptable to you, Rod?
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other changes necessary? Staff, are we all set? All those in favor please
signal by saying aye.
Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Conneman, Board Member Thayer, Board Member Howe and
Board Member Talty - Aye.
51
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? One opposed and there are no abstentions. The motion is
passed. Thank you very much.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -062 - Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell University
Parking Lot Reconstruction — Reis / Oxley Centers, Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No.'s 60 -1 -8.2 and 60- 1 -9.1.
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the reconstruction
of the Reis Tennis Center and Oxley Equestrian Center parking lots and access drives, located
off Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -8.2 and 60- 1 -9.1, Residence District
R -30. The project involves rebuilding and paving the existing gravel parking lots and access
drives, improvements to the stormwater drainage system, the addition of a sidewalk, and
enhancements to the existing TCAT bus pull -off on Pine Tree Road. The Oxley Equestrian
Center parking lot will be slightly widened. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda
Cartland, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 4, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 4, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate, plans entitled "Site Preparation Plan" (L -1), "Layout and Materials Plan" (L -2),
"Grading and Drainage Plan" (L -3), "Planting Plan" (L -4), and "Site Details" (L -5), dated 511102,
prepared by the LA Group, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval for the proposed reconstruction of the Reis Tennis Center and Oxley Equestrian
Center parking lots and access drives located off Pine Tree Road, as shown on plans titled
"Site Preparation Plan" (L -1), "Layout and Materials Plan" (L -2), "Grading and Drainage Plan"
(L -3), "Planting Plan" (L -4), and "Site Details" (L -5), dated 511102, prepared by the LA Group,
subject to the following conditions:
52
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
a. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits
from County, State, and /or Federal agencies, prior to the issuance of the building
permit;
b. Submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, revised to
remove the bus shelter /concrete pad, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the
issuance of the building permit;
C. Site plan to be modified to show landscaping along the east side of the Oxley Arena
parking lot substantially similar to the existing landscaping, the purpose of which is to
screen the parking lot from Pine Tree Road without obstructing the viewshed, such plan
to be approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit;
d. Obtaining of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the
size of the proposed parking spaces.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: Hoffmann.
The motion was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 7, 2002.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -063 - Approval of Minutes - May 07, 2002.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the May 07, 2002 minutes as
the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented.
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYES. Wilcox, Conneman, Howe, Talty.
NA YS: None.
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann, Thayer.
The motion was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you want to talk about meeting time and meeting length at this point?
Board Member Talty - Yes.
67N
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Board Member Howe - I made the comment to Fred that I would rather meet more often. I cannot go
until 11:30 at night if that is going to be our routine. I would rather meet more often or earlier. I'll
approve anything at 10:30 at night.
Chairperson Wilcox - There was also some concern on my part for Tracy, whose babysitter was there
until at least 11:30 at our last meeting.
Board Member Howe - I get up at 5 o'clock in the morning.
Board Member Talty - I came from Watertown today. It was a long day, boy. I leave at 5 o'clock to
be back here on time. I don't mind 10:15 p.m. I wasn't here for the last meeting, but I saw the
itinerary and I was glad I wasn't here to tell you the truth. I am the rookie of the group and all, but I'd
say out of the last 8 meeting, 4 have gone to 10:30. Is that the norm?
Chairperson Wilcox - In the spring, the meetings are longer and in the fall the meetings are shorter. It
is building season coming up.
Board Member Conneman - Why don't we start at 7:00 p.m? There are a lot committees in this
Town, including the Conservation Board, who meet at 7:00.
Board Member Hoffmann - Conservation Board meets at 7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - If we start earlier, I want to make sure we don't go longer.
Board Member Talty - That's up to the itinerary.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its also up to me or us. We could decide that we are going to start at 7 and
we're going to stop at 10:30 regardless of where we are. The Zoning Board does that and the Village
of Lansing Planning Board does that.
Board Member Thayer - Does it carry over? Do they have another meeting?
Chairperson Wilcox - They carry it over to the next meeting. I would assume that they decide whether
they have a special meeting or whether they simply carry it over. Rod made the comment to me that
we get tired. We get ornery and we don't necessarily make the best decisions. The issue is starting
time. I would rather start at 6:00 so that I could go from work to start or have enough time to go home
from work, eat, have a cup of coffee ... do what ever I do ... and start the meeting. Seven is about as
early as I would want to go. It would give me enough time to get home from work and do those
things. The alternative is 5:30 p.m. It is an extension of their workday.
Ms. Ritter - The Zoning Board starts at 7 o'clock.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seven to 10:30 is 3 and 1/2 hours. If we decide that we would like to start
earlier and then limit ourselves...
N
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Board Member Talty - When does everybody get out of work here? Lets take a poll on what the time
is when people get out so that we can align our schedules most of the time with staff schedule.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm between 5 and 5:30 when I usually leave the office.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would have trouble being finished with dinner and be here at 7. 1 have
trouble getting here at 7:30 actually.
Board Member Conneman - I would meet at 7 if you wanted to. I was just curious because a lot of
boards meet at 7. 1 would do anything you want.
Board Member Thayer - I'm flexible. Seven o'clock is fine. I get out at 5:30 on the day I work.
Chairperson Wilcox - Tuesday is the day you work.
Board Member Thayer - Tuesday and Wednesday.
Chairperson Wilcox - So you have to travel home, probably want to have dinner and then come back
down.
Board Member Thayer - I could make it by 7.
Chairperson Wilcox - It rushes it a little bit. Rod?
Board Member Howe - I could be here at 6.
Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin, you are probably more unpredictable...
Board Member Talty - That's for sure, not just in time either. I would say that if you want to keep it at
7 or 7:30 and then just cut it off at 10 o'clock or something. I vote for 10 o'clock. I'm done.
Attorney Barney - Could I suggest...?
Chairperson Wilcox - You may speak.
Attorney Barney - That maybe you stick with 7:30, but you take a look at your agenda for the next
meeting before you adjourn and if that looks like it is going to be a heavy agenda, then move your
starting time a half hour or so. You can usually tell. You knew tonight was going to be somewhat
heavy, but not disastrously so. You can usually get a pretty good idea for what you've got. I agree to
cut it off at 10:30 or whatever you agree. What we used to do at the school board in Lansing, we
called for a vote at 10:30 to decide whether we were going to continue beyond 10:30 or not. If you
are 10 minutes away from getting a project resolved... but if you see that you are an hour to an hour
and a half away then adjourn it or call a special meeting.
Board Member Howe - If we are thinking about that 3 -hour time period, could we start at 7 and say 7
to 10? There is a big difference in my mind from 10 to 10:30. 1 do get up at 5 o'clock in the morning.
C+1
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - We also have to work around staff schedule, your schedule and everybody
else's.
Mr. Smith - I do it for Zoning Board of Appeals and it seems to work good for me.
Ms. Ritter - John Barney?
Attorney Barney - At work until 10 o'clock at night any day. It really doesn't matter to me.
Chairperson Wilcox - You have a problem, but you say you can make it.
Board Member Thayer - I can make it.
Chairperson Wilcox - You have somewhat of an issue at 7.
Board Member Hoffmann - I prefer 7:30, but is doesn't mean that I can't come at 7 if everybody else
would benefit from that.
Attorney Barney - Eva, when you on the BZA, you were here at 7 o'clock.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, but it was hard.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do we want to formally ... you made the recommendation that we could formally
change the meeting time to 7. 1 think I might want to talk to Jonathan before we do it first just to make
sure as a courtesy. We could formally adopt starting at 7 and ending at 10. 1 like the option of voting
at 10 o'clock ... do we want to continue if we think... I think it's a great idea. It is both fair to us and the
applicant.
Board Member Hoffmann - There is a little bit of a problem with doing it that way. That is, it is
probably very easily to feel a lot of pressure to vote on something to finish a project even though,
maybe, we are not quite ready to do it. That is not fair to us or the applicant.
Board Member Conneman - Some of us could say, Eva, that we will vote against it if you bring it up
because we haven't has sufficient time to discuss it.
Chairperson Wilcox - That solves that problem.
Board Member Howe - I don't think it is any more unfair than making decision at 11:30 at night.
Board Member Hoffmann - It is just that you have a set time like that. You could aim to finish at 10 or
10:30, but if you have that set time it can very easily happen. I've seen it. People feel pressure to
make a decision in a hurry.
Board Member Talty - I would like to make a point also. If gathering all theses meetings is that since
I've started to this point in time, we've started to crack down on the applicants coming in like Six Mile
6701
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Creek brought in that letter tonight. Outstanding. I got touchy feely. I got to see what the color was
going to be. It was a much easier judgment to make a decision. When people come in half - assed, it
makes our job tougher. I could look at pull out the scale again. The scale is different on two of the
maps. One says 40 feet and one says 60 feet. That is unacceptable. What that does is it prolongs it
and adds to the itinerary of the next meeting. So when we say change it, change it. Come in and
make sure that it is together. Like I've got to tell you that I was really disappointed with the new
service shed that Dan worked on, not to pick on him because he's not here. I mean that was half -
assed when they came in here the first time.
Board Member Thayer - The Highway Department.
Board Member Talty - They know what we want. They should have come in better prepared than
that. If we want to shorten the time of the meeting, what we have to do is make sure that everybody
comes in and is prepared. In other words, we are raising the bar of the standard.
Board Member Conneman - Example, we argue when birds breed. That is not our job. Someone
should have a letter to that fact. When they came in for the wrestling facility. They didn't even come
in with samples of what it was going to like until the second time.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think you and I and Jon need to have a meeting. Technically, the fault lies with
me. Officially, it is the decision as to whether these applications are right to come to the board is
mine. Operationally it is staff.
Board Member Conneman - I think the staff understands what we expect to see. If they have a
building that has colors and other things, we expect now to see a sample. I think Susan has done
that most times.
Ms. Ritter - I don't think we always get a sample. I would have to say we do the best we can. We try
to lead the applicants as best we can. We have different quality applicants. They have different
amounts of money. You get used to Cornell coming in with bells and whistles. You are going to have
somebody else come in as some little supermarket with a little bit difference, so I think we let them
slide a little bit.
Board Member Talty - I don't think we have asked for these samples. I think the applicants have
come forward and provided. They aren't things that we have asked for. You guys have done an
outstanding job. I know that some of these guys who come in here in front us, who come in multiple
times representing different candidates, they skate. They know what you want and they know what
we want and they skate. They try to do at least amount as possible, which not all of them, but a lot of
them. I've seen what they've done. They know exactly what we are going to ask for. I think that you
are right that there is, I don't want to say that we have different standards, but for the ma and pops
that come in and can't afford the bells and whistles and laser guided things, you're right. I don't know
if I can have a dual standard on that, but these guys come in and they slide a lot of times. I can see
what they do. Tonight with the whole bathroom issue ... they knew what was going on. You would
have to be a moron not to know and these guys are not morons.
57
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Attorney Barney - I must confess. I didn't think about it until you started talking about it. There are 7
of you. You see something or one of you or maybe more than one of you see something when an
applicant comes in. It may not be something that staff thought of or that we thought of or that Fred
thought of. So it gets discussed. Again, I'm not sure you can fault an applicant for not showing where
a port -a -john is going to be.
Board Member Conneman - I wasn't faulting, anybody Susan. I don't want you to misinterpret what I
said. It just seems to me that when you have an architectural plan where you are going to build a
building, you bring samples in. I think most places in the world that is what they do.
Ms. Ritter - It is very helpful.
Board Member Conneman - You encourage them and if they don't do it, you know...
Chairperson Wilcox - If they don't do it, then this board adjourns it or doesn't approve it. Remember,
the power is ultimately this board. If somebody slides, we let them.
Board Member Thayer - That's true.
Chairperson Wilcox - Bathrooms or no bathrooms, we decided that bathrooms were necessary. They
said fine. They could've said no way; we still would have said bathrooms.
Board Member Conneman - I have to give them a lot of credit. They came back; Cornell came back
and answered all our questions.
Board Member Thayer - Basically, did what we asked.
Chairperson Wilcox - They took care of the major issues.
Board Member Conneman - I was really impressed because that has not happened before.
Ms. Ritter - I think with the Oxley parking lot, too, I'll have to say that was another one that I was very
impressed with that they came back and... They do modify their plans.
Chairperson Wilcox - Between now and our next meeting, which would be the 18` ", I will talk with
Jonathan Kanter about the possibility of a new starting time, 7 o'clock and meetings ending at 10 or
extended by this board as necessary. At the next meeting we might look to actually adopting the new
starting time and ending time, not this meeting. I want to talk to Jonathan and make sure it works for
him and his staff and everybody else. I should just check with the engineering department because
they are involved as well. Mr. Barney said...
Attorney Barney - Whatever you want to do.
Chairperson Wilcox - Under other business I was going to ask for the Randy Hall update. Randy Hall
is our operator of the used furniture store. By coincidence Mike came around at the beginning of the
meeting and showed me a site plan.
671:3
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JULY 2, 2002 -APPROVED
Mr. Smith - He had prepared a site plan either by himself or with his own staff and put measurements
to the site plan that you saw before with the trailers in the same location, but he has measurement
with the width and the size are. He has the location of where the display stands are and the distance
from the centerline to the road. It is all just handwritten stuff, but it does have all the dimension on it
believe that you are looking for.
Chairperson Wilcox - This is interesting. This maybe one of these things as an individual operating a
small business, the level of detail is not the same as this. I looked at it briefly and said it seems
sufficient.
Board Member Conneman - The last was insufficient.
Board Member Thayer - He is still leaving the trailers.
Chairperson Wilcox - He is proposing that the trailers stay. I was in the Town Hall this morning and
had a conversation with Andy Frost about it. He pointed to the fact that the consensus of this board
was you come back with a site plan; we'll give you a year to remove the trailers. They picked up on
that in the minutes. So, what we have seen has the trailers. I just saw it briefly this evening. The
trailers are still there. The problem is that I know some members of this board have said Randy Hall
if you work with us we will give you a year to get rid of the trailers, but since you haven't worked with
us we don't necessarily want to give you a year to keep those trailers because he was supposed to
come back with a plan. Andy Frost sending him a letter requesting he come back by May 1St with
some sort of a site plan. Now we have one in late May, early June. We'll see the plan and it will be
up to this board.
Board Member Hoffmann - He has also done something else I noticed when I drove by there the
other day. It looks to me like he has put a new cover on that greenhouse in the back. It is metallic
and it reflects the sun something unbelievably when you drive by there at a certain time of day. It is
very shiny.
Board Member Conneman - I went by there today, Eva, because I wondering whether they were
going to be gone.
Board Member Thayer - Just a question about PRI and the huge dirt piles out in front. I don't recall
that we talked about that. What is happening to those?
Ms. Ritter - I think they are all okay. Andy's been...
Chairperson Wilcox - The stockpiled dirt is part of the parking lot construction.
Mr. Smith - It is all stockpiled topsoil.
Board Member Thayer - They are huge piles. I'm just wondering what they are going to do with it.
You don't need that much dirt for parking.
=0
El
PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 4, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED - JUL Y2, 2002 - APPROVED
Ms. Ritter - They are going to be doing that terracing in the parking lot.
Board Member Thayer - Right, but does it take that much?
Ms. Ritter - It may. I actually don't remember.
Chairperson Wilcox - Has Andy been working with them?
Ms. Ritter - Yes.
Mr. Smith - Engineering has been out to check on sedimentation and erosion.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other business on the members of the Planning Board? Staff?
Board Member Talty - Larry, how are you feeling?
Board Member Thayer - Fine. I'm doing fine. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Last meeting I was in New York City for the day and still got back for the
meeting. I got an early flight back. Motion to adjourn?
Board Member Thayer - Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - We are adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the June 4, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:33 P.M.
pectfully submitted:
P'l 10
Carrie Whitmore,
Deputy Town Clerk
.E
•
El
•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Collegetown Bagel Outdoor Seating, East Hill Plaza,
7:36 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed placement of two outdoor tables and chairs on the sidewalk adjacent to
Collegetown Bagels (CTB) in East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.121,
Business District "C." The tables would be outside during the normal operating hours.
Hoang Mai Pham /Silex Management Corp., Owner /Applicant.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding a sign variance to allow one 53.8 +/- square foot wall sign to be placed on the east
side of the Six Mile Creek Winery Barn, 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 56- 2 -1.1, Residence District R -15 (barn location) and Conservation District (remainder
of property). Nancy Battistella, Owner /Applicant.
7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination, Gould 2 -Lot Subdivision, 154 Indian Creek Road.
7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed two -lot subdivision located at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 22- 2 -6.1, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide the 38,362 +/- square
foot parcel into two parcels of 13,191 +/- square feet and 25,171 +/- square feet, each
containing an existing house. John G. & Nancy I. Gould, Owners /Applicants,
7:55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the
proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the
Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60-
1.-9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal
includes the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500
+/- cubic yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater
detention basins and creation of a recreation trail, linking the proposed athletic fields and the
Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The modification includes reducing
the size of the northern field. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA,
Agent.
8:10 P.M. SEQR Determination, Cornell University Parking Lot Reconstruction Reis / Oxley Centers,
Pine Tree Road.
8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
reconstruction of the Reis Tennis Center and Oxley Equestrian Center parking lots and
access drives, located off Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -I -8.2 and 60-
1-9.1, Residence District R -30. The project involves rebuilding and paving the existing
gravel parking lots and access drives, improvements to the stormwater drainage system, the
addition of a sidewalk, and enhancements to the existing TCAT bus pull -offs on Pine Tree
Road, including a new bus shelter. The Oxley parking lot will be slightly widened. Cornell
University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Cartland, Agent.
10. Persons to be heard. (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
11. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 2002 and May 21, 2002.
12. Other Business.
13, Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT
AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
*By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by
the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following
times and on the following matters:
7:36 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed placement of two outdoor
tables and chairs on the sidewalk adjacent to Collegetown Bagels (CTB) in East Hill Plaza, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C." The tables would be outside during the normal
operating hours. Hoang Mai Pham /Silex Management Corp., Owner /Applicant.
7:40 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow
one 53.8 +/- square foot wall sign to be placed on the east side of the Six Mile Creek Winery Barn, 1551
Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56- 2 -I.1, Residence District R -15 (barn location) and
Conservation District (remainder of property). Nancy Battistella, Owner /Applicant.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision
located at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22- 2 -6.1, Residence District R -30. The
proposal is to subdivide the 38,362 +/- square foot parcel into two parcels of 13,191 +/- square feet and
25,171 +/- square feet, each containing an existing house. John G. & Nancy I. Gould,
Owners /Applicants.
7:55 P.M. Consideration of Modification of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic
Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30.
The proposal includes the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500
+/- cubic yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention
basins and creation of a recreation trail, linking the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center to
the East Ithaca Recreation Way. The modification includes reducing the size of the northern field.
Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent.
8:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the reconstruction of the Reis Tennis
Center and Oxley Equestrian Center parking lots and access drives, located off Pine Tree Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -8.2 and 60- 1 -9.1, Residence District R -30. The project involves rebuilding
and paving the existing gravel parking lots and access drives, improvements to the stormwater drainage
system, the addition of a sidewalk, and enhancements to the existing TCAT bus pull -offs on Pine Tree
Road, including a new bus shelter. The Oxley parking lot will be slightly widened. Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; Brenda Cartland, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be
provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48
hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
V#,,Rated: Friday, May 24, 2002
blish: Wednesday, May 29, 2002
•
L r
0
The Ithaca Journal
Wednesday;, May 29, 2002 -
TOWN OF ITHACA.
PLANNING BOARD j
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, June 4, 2002
By direction of the
Chairperson of the Planning
Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that Public Hearings
will be held by the Planning
Board of the Town of Ithaca
on Tuesday, June 4, 2002,
at 215 North Tioga Street, !
Ithaca, N.Y., at the following
times and on the following a
matters:
7:36 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the pro-
posed placement of two out-
door tables and chairs on
the sidewalk adJ'acent to !
Collegetown Bagels (CTB) in f
East Hill Plaza, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
62 -2. 1.121, Business Dis-
trict C. The tables would be
outside during the normal
opperatingg hours. Hoang Mai
Pham /$ilex Management
Corp., Owner /Applicant.
7:40 P.M. Consideration of
a Recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding a sign variance to
allow one 53.8 +/- square
foot wall'sign to'be placed
on the east side of the Six
Mile Creek Winery Barn, ,
1551 Slaterville Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
56.2 -1.1, Residence District
R -15 (barn location) and
Conservation District (re-
mainder of property).
Noncy Battistella, Owner/
Applicant.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Sub-
division Approval for the
proposed two-lot subdivision
located at 154 Indian Creek
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
'Parcel No. 22- 2.6.1, Resi-
dence District R -30. The pro-
posal is to subdivide the
38,362 +/- square foot par-
cel into two parcels of
13,191 +/- square feet and
25,171 +/- square feet,
each containing an existingg
house. John G. & Nancy t.
Gould, Owners /Applicants.:
{7:55 P.M. Consider"ation of t
Modification of Preliminary
Site Plan Approval and a '
recommendation to the Zon•
king Board of Appeals re-
garding Special Approval
for the proposed Cornell
University Precinct 9 Athletic
Fields located off Pine Tree
Road behind the Reis Tennis
Center and the Cornell
Equestrian Center, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s
60.1 -9.1, 60 -1 -9.2
60.1 -18, 60 -1.5, an8 j
60. 1.8.2, Residence District
R•30. The proposal includes
,the creation of two multi-
purpose athletic fields,
linvolving the deposition of
170500 +/- cubic yards of fill. I
'The proposal also includes
improvements to the existing
stormwater detention basins
and creation of a recreation
(trail, linking the proposed
athletic fields and the Reis
Tennis' Center to the East
Ithaca Recreation Way. The
modification includes reduc-
ing the size of the northern
field. Cornell University, i
Owner /Appplicant; Laurene
Gilbert, A' A1 Agent.
8:20 P.M. Consideration of
l Preliminary and Final Site
I Plan Approval for the re
construction of the Reis Ten-
nis Center and Oxley
Equestrian Center parking
lots and access drives, lo-
cated off Pine Tree Road, '
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 1
No.'s 60 -1 -8.2 and
60- 1.9.1, Residence District
R -30. The project involves t
rebuilding and paving the '
existing gravel parking lots
and access drives, im-
provements to the storm
water drainage system, the
addition of a sidewalk, and
enhancements to the existing
TCAT bus pull -offs on Pine
Tree Road, including a new
bus shelter. The Oxley park- !
ing lot will be slightly
widened. Cornell Universiy,
Owner /Applicant;. Brenda
Gartland, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place
hear all persons in support
of such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual
impairments, hearing
impairments or other special
needs, will be provided with
assistance as necessary,
upon request. Persons desir-
ing assistance must make
such a request not less than
48 hours prior to the time of
the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: May 24, 2002
May 29, 2002' I
b 1
El
C
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGWIN SHEET
DATE: June 4, 2002
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADbRESS /AFFILIATION
0
op
7
AN w TAPI "M
will
$P�
01 0 W MA
� 1
• r
m-iiii
I WtA
� 1 f ��
•mot.
r
/
A
,
I Lim
0
op
7
4
C
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Mary Bryant being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearinjzs to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 commencing at
7:30 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio a Street.
Date of Posting :
Date of Publication
May 24, 2002
May 29, 2002
Mary Bry
Town of I
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of May 2002,
Oanl L. Hohndl
HoWy Public, 06052879
Seneca County �����
-My Commission Expires Dec. 26. j.Daa
•
El
r
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Mary Bryant being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, June 4, 2002 commencing; at
7:30 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting
Date of Publication
May 24, 2002
May 29, 2002
Mary /,Bryant,
Town of Ithai
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of May 2002,
Notary Public
CARRIE WHITMORE
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 WH6052877
Tioga County
CoMhWon Expires December 264222"