Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet 2025-02-18TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 18, 2025 6:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Persons to be heard. 2. SEQR Determination: Special Permit- Early Bird Farm Fill Project, 716 Elmira Road. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of clean fill behind an existing gravel lot on a 0.6-ac portion of the 45.61-ac property located at 716 Elmira Road. The purpose of the project is to provide a future equipment storage area for the farm operation on the property. The project is a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to environmental review. The project is located in Tompkins County Agricultural District #2. George Sheldrake, Owner/Applicant; Cody Sheldrake, Agent. 4. SEQR Determination: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval – Two-lot subdivision, 1360 Slaterville Road. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision located at 1360 Slaterville Road. The project includes splitting the existing 2.8+/- acre parcel into two lots, with one 0.9+/- acre lot that will contain an existing residence, garage, and barn (Parcel A) and one new 1.9+/- acre vacant lot (Parcel B) that will have access off Harwick Road and Honness Lane. The project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Montgomery May and Patricia Vandebogart, Owners/Applicants; Ellen Morris-Knower, Agent. 6. SEQR Determination: Mirabito Redevelopment Project – 301 Pine Tree Road. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan, Special Permit, and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the proposed Mirabito convenience store with gasoline sales and Burger King drive-through restaurant, located at 301 Pine Tree Road. The project involves demolishing the existing 600+/ square foot gas station building and fuel canopy, and the 2,800+/- square foot former Burger King building, and redeveloping the site with a new 6,000+/- square foot building containing a convenience store and restaurant with drive-through; gasoline sales; fuel canopy; electric vehicle charging stations; stormwater facilities; sidewalks/pedestrian amenities; landscaping; and other site improvements. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner; James Ballantyne, Napierala Consulting, PC, Applicant; Brett Hughes, Mirabito Energy Products, Agent. 8. Approval of Minutes. 9. Other Business. 10. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom videoconference at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382 or by calling (929) 436-2866 and entering Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments directly to the Board during Persons to be Heard and/or Public Hearing. To watch the meeting live, please visit www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live. Recorded meetings are viewable at YouTube.com/TownofIthacaVideo. Written comments can be addressed to the Planning Board (in-person at Town Hall; by mail; or via email at Planning@townithacany.gov) until noon the day of the meeting. Comments addressed to the Board will be distributed to all Board members and Applicant(s). Comments received after the posting of the agenda packet (five business days prior to the meeting) are distributed to the Board on the day of the meeting. Comments are public and become part of the project file. Applications and associated project materials are available on the Town’s website at https://townithacany.gov/meeting-calendar- agendas/ under the calendar meeting date. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold public hearings on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, starting at 6:30 P.M. on the following matters: Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of clean fill behind an existing gravel lot on a 0.6-ac portion of the 45.61-ac property located at 716 Elmira Road. The purpose of the project is to provide a future equipment storage area for the farm operation on the property. The project is a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to environmental review. The project is located in Tompkins County Agricultural District #2. George Sheldrake, Owner/Applicant; Cody Sheldrake, Agent. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision located at 1360 Slaterville Road. The project includes splitting the existing 2.8+/- acre parcel into two lots, with one 0.9+/- acre lot that will contain an existing residence, garage, and barn (Parcel A) and one new 1.9+/- acre vacant lot (Parcel B) that will have access off Harwick Road and Honness Lane. The project is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Montgomery May and Patricia Vandebogart, Owners/Applicants; Ellen Morris-Knower, Agent. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan, Special Permit, and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the proposed Mirabito convenience store with gasoline sales and Burger King drive-through restaurant, located at 301 Pine Tree Road. The project involves demolishing the existing 600+/ square foot gas station building and fuel canopy, and the 2,800+/- square foot former Burger King building, and redeveloping the site with a new 6,000+/- square foot building containing a convenience store and restaurant with drive-through; gasoline sales; fuel canopy; electric vehicle charging stations; stormwater facilities; sidewalks/pedestrian amenities; landscaping; and other site improvements. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner; James Ballantyne, Napierala Consulting, PC, Applicant; Brett Hughes, Mirabito Energy Products, Agent. Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom videoconference at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382 or by calling (929) 436-2866 and entering Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments directly to the Board during Persons to be Heard and/or Public Hearing. To watch the meeting live, please visit www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live. Recorded meetings are viewable at YouTube.com/TownofIthacaVideo. Written comments can be addressed to the Planning Board (in-person at Town Hall; by mail; or via email at Planning@townithacany.gov) via email until noon the day of the meeting. Comments addressed to the Board will be distributed to all Board members and Applicant(s). Comments received after the posting of the agenda packet (five business days prior to the meeting) are distributed to the Board on the day of the meeting. Comments are public and become part of the project file. C.J. Randall, Director of Planning DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Nicholas Quilty-Koval, Planner DATE: February 11, 2025 RE: 1360 Slaterville Road 2-lot Subdivision – Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Enclosed please find materials for the proposed two-lot subdivision at 1360 Slaterville Road, located in a Medium Density Residential Zone. The project includes splitting the 2.8+/- acre parcel into two lots, with one .9+/- acre lot that will contain an existing residence, garage, and barn (Parcel A) and one new 1.9+/- acre vacant lot (Parcel B) that will have access off Harwick Road and Honness Lane. In addition to the structures noted above, the site contains maintained grass area, some large shrubs around the existing single-family home, and trees of various species and sizes around the perimeter property, acting as a buffer to Slaterville Road, Honness Lane, and Harwick Road. Municipal water and sewer serve the area. There are no plans to develop Parcel B (the vacant lot created by the subdivision). The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of a new lot (Parcel B) that will contain an accessory building (shed) without a principal building. The applicant indicated that the accessory building will be removed as part of this proposed subdivision project. The attached draft resolution contains a condition of approval requiring removal of the shed prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board chair. Attached are draft project approval resolution, a draft SEQR resolution, and a completed environmental assessment, with draft Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff. Please do not hesitate to contact me via email at nqultykoval@townithacany.gov or by phone at 607- 273-1747 extension 127 if you have any questions prior to the meeting. Cc: Montgomery May, Owner Ellen Morris-Knower, Howard Hanna Real Estate 1360 Slaterville Rd, Ithaca Tax parcel 503089 60.-1-27 Montgomery May, owner Proposed Subdivision Narrative: Parcel 60.-1-27 is currently a 2.8 acre parcel to be split into two parcels for sale as 1-single family home (2256 sqft, 1316 sqft footprint) with 3-car garage (875 sqft) and barn (954 sqft footprint) with the address of 1360 Slaterville Rd on 0.927 acres, and 1- residential building lot with an address of 0 Harwick Rd on 1.871 acres. There is a buyer with an accepted purchase offer interested in the single family home, garage and barn on 0.927 acres but has no interest in the adjoining 1.87 acres. Currently there is an old shed on a foundation and a moveable shed on the vacant parcel. Both will be removed. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Slaterville Road Two-Lot Subdivision 1360 Slaterville Road Tax Parcel No. 60.-1-27 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision at 1360 Slaterville Road located in a Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. The project includes splitting the 2.8+/- acre parcel into two lots, with one .9+/- acre lot that will contain an existing residence, garage, and barn (Parcel A) and one new 1.9+/- acre vacant lot Parcel B) that will have access off Harwick Road and Honness Lane. Montgomery May and Patricia Vandebogart, Owners/Applicants; Ellen Morris-Knower, Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, 3. The Planning Board on February 18, 2025, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff, a subdivision map entitled “Subdivision Map NO. 1360 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York” prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated 8/12/2024, and other application materials; 4. Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Slaterville Road Two-Lot Subdivision 1360 Slaterville Road Tax Parcel No. 60.-1-27 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two-lot subdivision at 1360 Slaterville Road located within a Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. The project includes splitting the 2.8+/- acre parcel into two lots, with one .9+/- acre lot that will contain an existing residence, garage, and barn (Parcel A) and one new 1.9+/- acre vacant lot Parcel B) that will have access off Harwick Road and Honness Lane. Montgomery May and Patricia Vandebogart, Owners/Applicants; Ellen Morris-Knower, Agent; 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has on February 18, 2025, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board on February 18, 2025, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, a subdivision map entitled “Subdivision Map NO. 1360 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated 8/12/2024, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision at 1360 Slaterville Road, as shown on the survey map noted in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, removal of the two sheds on Parcel B noted “To Be Removed,” and b. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the approved final subdivision plat, including the original signature and seal of the registered land surveyor, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk Office, and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. Page 1 of 2 Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: Date: Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Impact Assessment Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept “Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?” No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? 2.Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? 3.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? 4.Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? 5.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? 6.Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7.Will the proposed action impact existing: a. public / private water supplies? b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities? 8.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? 9.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? 10.Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? 11.Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Page 2 of 2 For every question in Part 2 that was answered “moderate to large impact may occur”, or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short- term, long-term and cumulative impacts. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Determination of Significance Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: Date: 1360 Slaterville Rd Neighboring parcels Tax Map Parcel Owner Address 60.-1-27 SUBJECT Montgomery MAY 1360 Slaterville Rd 60.-1-25.4 Thomas PAOLANGELI 121 Harwick Rd 60.-1-38 David & Teresa GALLOWAY 114 Honness Ln 60.-1-28 Andrea & Daniel SPROCKETT 1356 Slaterville Rd 60.1-1-46.1 Eastwood Commons SHHA Sunnyhill Ln 60.1-1-46.21 Sunnyhill Homeowners Eastwood Commons Sunnyhill Ln 60.1-1-30.1 BEM Daryl J & HENDERSON Bruce 511 Strawberry Hill Cir No 1 60.1-1-30.2 POTTER Jennifer H 511 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2 60.1-1-30.3 LIAUKONYTE Jurate & WARREN Columbia J 511 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 60.1-1-30.4 CLAPPER Christopher & KAHABKA Jason 511 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4 60.1-1-30.5 ALTMAN Sherry L 511 Strawberry Hill Cir No 5 60.1-1-30.6 RASMUSSEN Kathleen 511 Strawberry Hill Cir No 6 60.1-1-31.1 STEH Helen 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 1 60.1-1-31.2 ASLAN Carolyn Chabot 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2 60.1-1-31.3 MILLER Meredith L 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 60.1-1-31.4 KREUTZER Diana & FOOTE Misha & Alex Kreutzer 521 Strawberry Hill Cir No 4 60.1-1-33.1 ANSBRO Marianne & Thomas MALONEY 101 Strawberry Hill Cir No 1 60.1-1-33.2 ROSNER Heather & Taryn 101 Strawberry Hill Cir No 2 60.1-1-33.3 MURRAY Carol B & Paul J 101 Strawberry Hill Cir No 3 RECORDED SUBDIVISIONS 60.1-1-46.1 Eastwood Commons SHHA 60.1-1-46.21 Sunnyhill Homeowners Eastwood Commons 60.1-1-46.22 Strawberry Place LLC NOT TECHNICALLY ABUTTING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Nicholas Quilty-Koval, Planner DATE: February 10, 2025 RE: 716 Elmira Road Early Bird Farm Equipment Storage Area – Special Permit Enclosed please find materials related to the proposed farm equipment storage area, located at 716 Elmira Road (Tax ID 33.-2-7.2) in a Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone, also located in Agricultural District 2 identified on the Tompkins County Agricultural Districts Map dated March 2021. The project involves the grading and filling of a 0.60-acre area behind an existing gravel lot on the parcel with 5,000 cubic yards of fill. This project requires a Planning Board Special Permit because it involves the deposit or removal of more than 250 cubic yards of material on any parcel in one year (Town Code §270 -217). The proposed grading and filling area for the storage of farm equipment involves approximately 5,000 cubic yards of a mixture of clean fill and gravel installed in the existing open field located 280 feet northwest from Elmira Road and 145 feet northeast from the existing structure on the property. The applicant will establish a construction entrance by reinforcing the existing gravel areas located along Elmira Road with additional gravel and asphalt. The project site includes a Class C stream (Cayuga Inlet, Upper, and minor tributaries) located approximately 190 feet north of the project site, which is identified in the 2017 Town of Ithaca Stream Setback Map as a stream requiring a 50ft setback from the bankfull flow or level mark per Town Code 270-219.5. No work is proposed within the identified stream setback area. The project involves temporary stormwater management facilities during construction. The Town of Ithaca Public Works and Engineering Departments reviewed a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) for the project. Pursuant to the Town Code requirements in §270-217, the Director of Public Works (Joe Slater) and The Director of Engineering (Justin McNeal, on behalf of the Director of Engineering) have confirmed that the SWPPP has been deemed adequate. This is anticipated to be classified as a Type II Action under State Environmental Quality Review Act 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c)(4). Attached is the draft Special Permit resolution for Planning Board consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 607-273-1747 extension 127, or email me at nquiltykoval@townithacany.gov if you have any questions prior to the meeting. Cc: George Sheldrake DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Stormwater, Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, Roads, Parks, and Trails 114 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 ENGINEERING@TOWNITHACANY.GOV PHONE: 607.273.1656 FAX: 607.272.6076 www.townithacany.gov ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM TO: George Sheldrake 716 Elmira Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 FROM: Justin McNeal - Civil Engineer Sam Harris – Civil Engineer Joe Slater – Director of Public Works CC: Town of Ithaca Planning Department DATE: February 11th, 2025 RE: EarlyBird Farm Equipment Storage Area on Elmira Road Tax parcel 33.-3-7.2 The Town of Ithaca has reviewed the Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) narrative for the above referenced project dated January 17, 2025. We offer the following comments: General Comments: An approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit is required through the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department. Apply online through the Town of Ithaca’s website. Based on the materials submitted, the SWPPP plan appears to adequately protect the property and surrounding properties from significant adverse consequences of such deposit or removal, including, when completed, adverse drainage, erosion, visual or other adverse impacts. Sincerely, Justin McNeal Sam Harris Joe Slater Civil Engineer Civil Engineer Director of Public Works Town of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Town of Ithaca Engineering Department Engineering Department Department of Public Works Early Bird Farm Equipment Lot Site Project Narrative Our goal for this project is to ultimately turn a plot of land that is currently an unused agricultural field into a flat lot that can be used for equipment and material storage. An equipment lot with a level entrance from route 13 will be easier on drivers and operators and will reduce our traffic on the much smaller Calkins Road. Over the past few years we have been receiving small amounts of clean fill from the town, city, and individuals to the site and slowly expanding the area. In December, the project manager for the Ithaca Farmers Market parking lot renovation project reached out to offer us a substantial amount of gravel and earth fill. We accepted his offer and have been receiving truckloads since mid January. The amount of time between the offer and receiving the fill was only a matter of days which is why our application to the town planning board is rather late. Pg. 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Special Permit Early Bird Farm Fill Project 716 Elmira Road Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-7.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board February 18, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This action is a consideration of the Special Permit for the installation of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of clean fill behind an existing gravel lot located at 716 Elmira Road in a Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone. The purpose of the project is to provide a future equipment storage area for the farm operation on the property. George Sheldrake, Owner/Applicant; Cody Sheldrake, Agent, 2. In accordance with 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c)(4), State Environmental Quality Review, this is classified as a Type II Action and not subject to environmental review, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on February 18, 2025, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative and a set of drawings entitled “Early Bird Farm, Equipment Storage Area, 716 Elmira Road,” including Sheets 1-3, prepared by Owen B. Barden (OBB), dated January 8, 2025, and other application materials, and 4. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §239-l et seq., and such Department responded in a February 6, 2025, letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §239-l, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action will have no significant county- wide or inter-community impact; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics. The project is located on the existing Early Bird Farm property and will be constructed in existing, previously disturbed open grass area. B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed clean fill and gravel equipment storage area located adjacent to an existing gravel lot is consistent with the Early Bird Farm operations. Pg. 2 C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes, vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone. The proposed project will produce temporary noise, vibration, and other nuisances associated with construction and farming related activities. Such nuisances will cease upon completion of the project. D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services, roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. The community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout comply with all the provisions of the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed for emergency vehicles. The project does not include installation of new vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access, or the modification to existing traffic circulation and parking and lodging facilities. This project includes reinforcing portions of the existing gravel access drive along Elmira Road for the trucks delivering fill and gravel to the site. All accessways have been safely designed for emergency vehicles. G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible. The project does not include removal of existing landscaping onsite or modification to the existing pond and stream setback areas located north of the proposed equipment storage area. H. To the extent deemed relevant by the reviewing Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in this chapter, 2. That, pursuant to Town Code Section 270-217.E, the Planning Board hereby finds that the plan adequately protects the property and surrounding properties from significant adverse consequences of such deposit or removal, including, when completed, adverse drainage, erosion, visual or other adverse impacts, taking into account the distance of the operation from neighboring property and public ways, the possible detriment of such use to the future development of the land in question, and significant nuisance or detriment of the operation to neighboring landowners and to the community as a whole, and 3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Early Bird Farm Fill Project, with the following conditions: Pg. 3 a. Submission to the Town Engineering Department an updated grading plan, and b. All Town of Ithaca Engineering Department comments listed in the Engineering Memorandum, written by Joe Slater, Director of Public Works and Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer, dated February 11, 2025, must be addressed prior to any Land Development Activity (Per Town Code § 228- 5). COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 | Phone: (607) 274-5560 | tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. February 6, 2025 Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Special Use Permit for proposed Early Bird Farm Equipment Storage Area located at 716 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel #33.-3-7.2, George Sheldrake, Owner and Applicant. Dear Ms. Balestra: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Earlybird Farm Equipment Storage Area Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Town of Ithaca Tompkins County, New York Prepared for: George Sheldrake 806 Elmira Road Ithaca, NY 14850 6072273826 Prepared by: Cody Sheldrake 806 Elmira Road Ithaca NY, 14850 01/17/2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 STORMWATER RUNOFF 1 CONTROLS 1 MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS 3 CERTIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL REGULATIONS 4 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 1OF3 DETAILS 2OF3 STREAM SETBACK EXHIBIT 3OF3 APPENDIX LOCATION MAP APPENDIX A WETLAND MAP APPENDIX B USDA SOIL SURVEY APPENDIX C 716 Elmira Fill Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site, located on 716 Elmira Road, is situated in the Town of Ithaca on Tax Map Parcel 33. 3 -7.2 . The project consists of receiving approximately 5,000 yards of fill into an unused field off the west side of the equipment storage lot. The proposed project will install a level, stabilized surface that is suitable to accommodate that additional storage of agricultural equipment . The project will begin in January of 2025 and be completed by late February of 2025. The total area of disturbance of the project is approximately 0.6 acres. The project will involve the filling of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material. Consistent with Section 228-6 of the Town of Ithaca Code, “any land development activity that involves excavation or filling, or a combination of excavation and filling, of 250 cubic yards or more of fill, sod, loam, sand, gravel, stone or similar materials” requires the preparation of a basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion and sediment control practices. The stormwater management objectives presented in this basic SWPPP focus on controlling erosion and sedimentation with temporary practices during construction, and permanent vegetative stabilization of the disturbed soils. It is understood that because the project is under 1 acre of disturbance and not located in a Watershed with a Lower Disturbance Threshold, coverage under the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit (GP-0-20-001) will not be obtained. The project site consists of an unused agricultural field and an existing gravel equipment storage lot. The soil within the project site ‘Howard Gravelly Loam’ classified as hydrologic soil group “A” according to the USDA Soil Survey, see Appendix C. While the National Wetlands Inventory shows a classified PSS1E wetland delineated in 1985 within the vicinity of the site. STORMWATER RUNOFF Existing Conditions The project site is best characterized as former agricultural land, and will disturb approximately .6 acres. Currently, all of the storm water runoff from the site drains into a low point on the eastern property boundary. Due to the underlying soil characteristics, a portion of the runoff is infiltrated. The total area of the site is .6 acres and contains 100% impervious area. Proposed Conditions The work included in the project involves filling in the .6 acre of former agricultural land for the purpose of expanding the existing equipment storage lot This will create additional space for storage and provide a potential area for the farm to expand to in the future. Upon the completion of final grading, the site will be stabilized with seed and mulch. There will be no increase in impervious areas and current drainage patterns will not change. CONTROLS Erosion and Sediment Controls The proposed temporary erosion and sediment control practices, and a detailed sequencing of the major construction activities, are as follow: Prior to receiving any material, a construction entrance will be built and reinforced where trucks will enter and exit Elmira road. Earlybird Farm 1 . January 17, 2025 716 Elmira Fill Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Erosion control practices are to be installed in all locations shown on the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prior to any soil disturbance. If runoff from a disturbed area occurs, runoff must pass through a properly installed sediment control practice. All control practices shall be periodically inspected and maintained during construction. Inlet protection shall be cleaned out when sediment reaches 25% of the height of the fabric/silt sack. Erosion control blanket will be used on all disturbed slopes exceeding 3:1 Permanent vegetation shall be planted or seeded immediately following final grading providing the weather is acceptable. Each practice is to be in compliance with the November 2016 New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (aka Blue Book). Implementation of the plan, and the installation and maintenance of all practices, shall be in accordance with the NYSDEC standards. Construction Sequence Schedule Major activities for each phase of this site include but are not limited to: Installing silt fence as shown on plans. Building and reinforcing construction entrance Receiving fill, grading and compacting as it arrives Installing erosion control fabric and and slope steeper than 3:1 Seeding and mulching upon completion of grading work within 7 days (weather permitting) Establishing lawn areas and final stabilization measures. Removing temporary practices. Stabilization Practices The applicable erosion and sediment control measures shall be constructed prior to any land disturbance, where applicable. Where land disturbance is necessary, temporary stabilization techniques must be used on areas within 7 days of the last construction activity in that area, unless construction activities will be resumed within 14 days. If temporary vegetative controls are used for stabilization, they must be paired with other stabilization techniques (straw mulching, matting, etc.) in order to provide immediate stabilization of that area. All stabilization techniques used, must be installed according to the Drawings and Details of this plan set, which are in conformance with the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Permanent vegetation should be installed within 7 days of the completion of grading activities. If the Qualified Professional determines that permanent seed cannot be applied due to climate conditions, topsoil shall not be spread, and temporary mulching shall be applied to the exposed surface to stabilize soils until the next recommended seeding period. Other Controls Waste Disposal All waste materials will be collected and stored in securely lidded metal dumpsters rented from a local waste management company which must be a solid waste management company licensed to do business in Tompkins County. The dumpsters will comply with all local and state solid waste management regulations. All trash and construction debris from the site will be deposited in the dumpsters. The dumpsters will be emptied as necessary and the trash will be hauled to a landfill approved by New York State. No construction waste materials will be buried on site. All personnel will be instructed regarding the correct procedures for waste disposal. Sanitary Waste Existing facilities and septic systems will be sufficient for workers in this project Earlybird Farm 2 . January 17, 2025 716 Elmira Fill Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste All hazardous waste materials will be disposed of by the Contractor in the manner specified by local, state, and/or federal regulations and by the manufacturer of such products. Site personnel will be instructed in these practices by the job site superintendent, who will also be responsible for seeing that these practices are followed. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS's), for each substance with hazardous properties that is used on the job site, will be obtained and used for the proper management of potential wastes that may result from these products. An MSDS will be posted in the immediate area where such product is stored and/or used and another copy of each MSDS will be maintained in the SWPPP file at the job site. Each employee who must handle a substance with hazardous properties will be instructed on the use of MSDS sheets and the specific information in the applicable MSDS for the product he/she is using, particularly regarding spill control techniques. Any spills of hazardous materials which are in quantities in excess of Reportable Quantities as defined by EPA regulations shall be immediately reported to the EPA National Response Center 1-800-424-8802. In order to minimize the potential for a spill of hazardous materials to come into contact with stormwater, the following steps will be implemented: All materials with hazardous properties (such as pesticides, petroleum products, fertilizers, detergents, construction chemicals, acids, paints, paint solvents, cleaning solvents, additives for soil stabilization, concrete curing compounds and additives, etc.) will be stored in a secure location, under cover, when not in use. The minimum practical quantity of all such materials will be kept on the job site. A spill control and containment kit (containing, for example, absorbent such as kitty litter or sawdust, acid neutralizing powder, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, plastic and metal trash containers, etc.) will be provided at the storage site. All of the products in a container will be used before the container is disposed of. All such containers will be triple-rinsed with water prior to disposal. The rinse water used in these containers will be disposed of in a manner in compliance with state and federal regulations and will not be allowed to mix with stormwater discharges. All products will be stored in and used from the original container with the original product label. All products will be used in strict compliance with instructions on the product label. The disposal of excess or used products will be in strict compliance with instructions on the product label. M AINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS The applicant of the landowner, or his/her representative, shall at all times properly operate and maintain all stormwater management practices and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the applicant or developer to achieve compliance with the conditions of these regulations. Built up sediment shall be removed from the erosion control practices when sediment reaches 25% of the height of the fabric/silt sack. All driveways will be maintained with additional gravel as needed to prevent any soil or trackout from running off of the site. A copy of the basic SWPPP shall be retained at the site of the land development activity during construction from the date of initiation of construction activities until the date of final stabilization. In accordance with Chapter 228-11 of the Town Code, the “landowner or his/her representative shall inspect and document the effectiveness of all erosion and sediment control practices. Inspection Earlybird Farm 3 . January 17, 2025 Location M ap Earlybird Farm Equipm ent Storage Area Legend Projec t Location 2 mi NN Image © 2025 A irbus Image © 2025 A irbus Image © 2025 A irbus Earlybird Equipment Storage - Wetland Map US Geological Survey Tompkins County GIS | New York State Dept of Environmental Conservation | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | Tompkins County Assessemnt Department. Data extract compiled and distributed by Tompkins Information Technology Services County GIS Division. Legend Parcels National Wetlands Inventory NYSDEC Regulated Wetlands 20' Contours Notes 0 350 700 ft This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Hydrologic Soil Group—Tompkins County, New York Earlybird Farm Equipment Storage Area) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/13/2025 Page 1 of446962304696240469625046962604696270469628046962904696230469624046962504696260469627046962804696290372900372910372920372930372940372950372960372970372980372990373000372900372910372920372930372940372950372960372970372980372990373000 42° 24' 30'' N 76° 32' 40'' W42° 24' 30'' N76° 32' 35'' W42° 24' 28'' N 76° 32' 40'' W42° 24' 28'' N 76° 32' 35'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 20 40 80 120 Feet 0 5 10 20 30 Meters Map Scale: 1: 504 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Tompkins County, New York Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 29, 2024 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Apr 1, 2020—Oct 1, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Tompkins County, New York Earlybird Farm Equipment Storage Area) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/13/2025 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI HdC Howard gravelly loam, 5 to 15 percent simple slopes A 0.6 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 0.6 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Hydrologic Soil Group—Tompkins County, New York Earlybird Farm Equipment Storage Area Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/13/2025 Page 3 of 4 Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Tompkins County, New York Earlybird Farm Equipment Storage Area Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 1/13/2025 Page 4 of 4 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.town.ithaca.ny.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner DATE: February 11, 2025 RE: Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision Review, Special Permit – Mirabito Redevelopment Project Enclosed please find materials related to Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision review and Special Permit for the redevelopment of the Mirabito gas station and convenience store in East Hill Plaza, 301 Pine Tree Road/CR 120. The project involves demolishing the existing 600+/ square foot gas station building and fuel canopy, and the 2,800+/- square foot former Burger King building, and redeveloping the site with a new 6,000+/- square foot building containing a convenience store and restaurant with drive-thru, gasoline sales, fuel canopy, electric vehicle charging stations, stormwater facilities, sidewalks/pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and other site improvements. Project history The Planning Board reviewed a sketch plan for this project on February 21, 2023. The applicant team took suggestions from the Planning Board, the Tompkins County Department of Planning Sustainability, the Tompkins County Highway Department, the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department, and the public at that meeting and returned to the Planning Board for consideration of Preliminary Site Plan, Preliminary Subdivision, and Special Permit approvals on July 18, 2023. The team presented a reconfigured project, with modifications to alleviate concerns with site/pedestrian access, stormwater management, easements, and aesthetic/visual impacts that were expressed at the sketch plan review. The July 18, 2023, project materials also included a traffic study, additional stormwater management (SWPPP) information, architectural details, and details on lighting and landscaping. After a long discussion, the Planning Board asked the applicant to make additional changes to the project. The minutes from the July 18, 2023, Planning Board meeting are enclosed; but the board requested: 1. A re-design of the architecture of the building to contain a four-sided design (no blank walls), with each view of the building containing some architectural theme that flows to all sides of the building; and the back of the building, which faces Ellis Hollow Road, matching the front of the building in terms of architectural styling. 2 2. Installation of real windows on all sides of the building, not fake windows (provided that the real windows did not conflict with the Town Energy Code requirements). 3. Elimination of the proposed car wash, as the site acreage was inadequate (also, per the 6/13/2023 memo from the Town Engineering Department, the existing sanitary sewer collection system did not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the car wash). 4. Revised architectural drawings that accurately reflected the layout of the site and the project, with accurate renderings of project views from Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and East Hill Plaza. 5. Greater diversity in the proposed plantings, with consideration of pollinator gardens. As noted during previous reviews, the applicant intends to consolidate the parcel that contains the existing Mirabito gas station with the adjacent parcel that contains the building formerly housing a Burger King restaurant and re-subdivide the property to obtain an additional 0.8+/- acres for the new development. The result will be a 1.5+/- acre parcel that will contain the redeveloped Mirabito and associated uses, and a 1.1+/- acre parcel that will contain the former Burger King parking lot. The property owner (Cornell University) has not indicated a future intent for the former Burger King restaurant and remaining surface parking lot. Revised project considerations The enclosed materials reflect the modifications that were requested in 2023. The applicant team has since eliminated the car wash, reduced the size of the proposed Mirabito building, and reconfigured the parking lot, drive-thru, stormwater management elements, landscaping, and lighting elements. The attached architectural details contain accurate renderings of the project from all views, with four-sided building design and other requested architectural features. Please note that the letter from the applicant team, dated December 26, 2024 (included in the revised application materials), contains some outdated information associated with the project. The letter explains responses to the Town Engineering comments that were made in 2023, when the project included a car wash and other elements that are no longer included. Please instead refer to the attached revised memo from the Engineering Department, dated February 4, 2025. Among the attachments (and for the benefit of the new members of the Planning Board), is another copy of the traffic study, the proposed subdivision plat, and the letter regarding the Town Energy Code that were previously provided to the board. Also attached are a completed environmental assessment and attached draft resolutions, containing proposed conditions of approval for the Planning Board to consider. Please feel free to contact me by phone at 273- 1721, ext. 121 or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov if you have any questions. Cc: Brett Hughes, Mirabito Energy Products Matthew Napierala, Napierala Consulting Jeremy Thomas, Director of Real Estate, Cornell University Kristen Gutenburger Grossman, Associate Director of Real Estate, Cornell University DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING Stormwater, Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, Roads, Parks, and Trails 114 Seven Mile Drive, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 ENGINEERING@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US PHONE: 607.273.1656 FAX: 607.272.6076 www.town.ithaca.ny.us ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM FROM: David O’Shea P.E., Director of Engineering Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer TO: Matthew R. Napierala, P.E., Napierala Consulting Professional Engineer, P.C James Ballantyne, Napierala Consulting Professional Engineer, P.C Brett Hughes, Mirabito Energy Products CC: Town of Ithaca Planning Board DATE: February 4, 2025 RE: 301 Pine Tree Rd, Mirabito Energy Products Re-Development We have reviewed the above referenced project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) narrative last revised date December 2024, and the associated plan set dated May 05, 2023, last revised November 21, 2024. All previously satisfied comments have been removed. We offer the following comments: Water and Sewer An in-depth review of the proposed water and sanitary sewer services will be reviewed once an External Plumbing Permit Application has been submitted. Acknowledged by applicant Existing water and sewer services will be required to be removed all the way to the respective utility main for both parcels unless being reused. Please provide details of the disconnection from the main. o Please coordinate specifics relative to each service with the Engineering Department prior to revision materials. o On sheet C-2.1, the sewer service must be removed from the manhole and the hole plugged with mortar. o On sheet C-2.1, the abandoned water service shall be disconnected at the water main tee, the tee shall be plugged, and a thrust block shall be installed behind the plug. All existing water and sewer service sizes and locations need to be shown on the plans. See the attached curb cards for reference. Please indicate all proposed materials and sizes for the water services on the utility plan. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits a water easement must be executed over the existing public water main and appurtenances. The utility plan, sheet C-6, currently depicts a proposed water easement for the private water service which is not needed. Please remove the house trap detail on sheet C-10, house traps are no longer allowed per NYS Building Code. Please add a note to the Typical Lateral Connection detail, there must be a cleanout installed at the ROW/Easement line. Please add a cleanout at the ROW/Easement line to the Utility Plan. SWPPP These items need to be addressed prior to Final Site Plan Approval Update section A of the narrative to reference that the project was designed in accordance with the 2024 Stormwater Design Manual and the Construction General Permit GP-0-25-001. Update the SWPPP to identify the party responsible for the long-term maintenance of the post practices and conveyance systems. A stormwater maintenance and reporting agreement and access easement will need to be executed if one does not exist prior to issuance of a building permit. Acknowledged by applicant o It appears that SMA-2 is being used for stormwater attenuation. This needs to be included in the long-term maintenance agreement. If the developer is responsible for long term maintenance, then provide proof that the developer has rights to maintenance and reporting activities on the adjacent parcel. o SWPPP must explicitly identify if the property owner or the developer will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the stormwater practice. Update the narrative to include a draft of the 2025 eNOI for review, please remove the old NOI. Prior to MS4 acceptance a letter from OPRHP or other means acceptable as identified in Part 1.A.4 of the General Permit will be required to indicate that the project is in compliance with GP-0-25-001. Update the plan set to include winter stabilization requirements. Sheet C-14 references the NYSDEC Blue Book, please include these requirements in the plan set. Please update the following in the SWPPP Narrative: o Table 4 on page 9 is titled Existing Drainage Area 2 Hydrological Conditions; this should be changed to Drainage Area 3. o On page 11, the page reference for the Stormwater Design Manual is incorrect, please modify this and reference the 2024 Design Manual. o On page 11, the narrative indicates three proposed drainage areas but lists four. o On page 17, in the last paragraph, please add a statement that RRV was not required for DA-2 and DA-3 as they were redevelopment portions of the project with no increase in impervious area. o On page 19, in the first paragraph, please add clarification that the WQv for DA-2 will be oversized to accommodate the WQv requirement for DA-3 and that both are tributary to the same drainage point. o Update Section F. Treatment conditions have changed in the New Design Manual that prohibit Level 2 hotspots from infiltration. The design proposes the use of RRv min due to site limitations. The specific site limitations that prevent the reduction of 100% of the WQv must be documented in the SWPPP in accordance with the Construction General Permit. The proposed site layout is self-created and should not be considered a site limitation. Please provide calculations/modeling showing that the water quality event produces a volume that is equivalent or greater than the WQv being claimed. Bioretention o Please provide stage storage modeling to verify that 50% of the WQv is held above the mulch layer. o In addition, the 2024 Stormwater Design Manual states that the practice must be sized to capture, retain, and filter the entire WQv without overflow or bypass. We are currently seeking clarification on this from DEC. o Review the modeling, details, and plans. The details do not appear to correspond to the model. Water rises 6” above the mulch layer. This would enter the 6” drain depicted in the detail. This drain needs to be modeled if it is to be utilized. (The detail for the Bioretention Filter on sheet C-11 depicts a NYOPLAST drain with a dome grate.) o If soil borings and infiltration testing yield adequate results to remove the liner from Bioretention Filter 2, the applicant will need to provide that information to the MS4 for approval prior to construction of the filter. Review the modeling of OS-3, during the 1, 10, and 100 year storms the primary outflow shows a flow rate of 0.00 cfs. Please review the inverts for MH-2 on sheet C-4 vs. Stormtech Detail on sheet C- 12, there is a discrepancy on the invert of the 12-inch pipe that runs between MH-2 and the Stormtech Chamber. Please include routing diagrams for the HydroCad calculations. The points of study for the pre vs. post conditions must match. In the proposed analysis the point of study for DA-2 has changed. All areas draining to the point of study must be included in the analysis. Provide approval documentation for proprietary devices in accordance with the Stormwater Design Manual. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision, Special Permit Mirabito Redevelopment Project 301 Pine Tree Road Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-1.121, 62.-2-1.13, 62.-2-1.22 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan, Special Permit, and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the proposed Mirabito convenience store with gasoline sales and Burger King drive-thru restaurant, located at 301 Pine Tree Road. The project involves demolishing the existing 600+/ square foot gas station building and fuel canopy, and the 2,800+/- square foot former Burger King building, and redeveloping the site with a new 6,000+/- square foot building containing a convenience store and restaurant with drive-thru, gasoline sales, fuel canopy, electric vehicle charging stations, stormwater facilities, sidewalks/pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner; James Ballantyne, Napierala Consulting, PC, Applicant; Brett Hughes, Mirabito Energy Products, Agent, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as the lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project, 3. The Planning Board, on February 18, 2025, has reviewed and accepted as adequate: a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant; Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff; a binder of materials titled “Site Plan Review Materials For Proposed Mirabito Redevelopment Project, 301 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850,” including set of revised drawings titled “Proposed Mirabito Redevelopment Project, 301 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State,” with sheets C-0, C-1, C-2, C-2.1, C-3 through C-14, prepared by Napierala Consulting, dated 05 May, 2023 and most recently revised 1/14/2025; architectural plans titled “Convenience Center W/Fuel, Mirabito, Ithaca, NY,” including sheets A-101 through A-116, prepared by Delta Engineers, Architects & Surveyors, dated 02/06/2025; a subdivision plat titled “Subdivision Map, For Cornell University Located At, No. 1010 Ellis Hollow Road and No. 301 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 4/17/2023 and revised 6/15/2023; and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval, Subdivision Approval, and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Page 1 of 3 Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information Instructions for Completing Part 1 – Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 – Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action: Name of Applicant or Sponsor:Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. NO YES 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other government Agency? If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: NO YES 3. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? __________ acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? __________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? __________ acres Check all land uses that occur on,DUH adjoining RU near the proposed actioQ 8UEDQ Rural (non-agriculture)ndustrial Commercial Residential (suburban) TXDWLF 2WKHU 6SHFLI\Forest Agriculture Parkland Mirabito Redevelopment Project 301 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, NY 14850 Project includes construction of a 6,000 sf gas station/convenience store with an attached fast food restaurant with drive-thru. Associated site amenities such as sidewalks, parking, E.V. charging stations, and storm water management facilities will also be provided. The project also includes demolishing the existing gas station building and the existing former Burger King building, and reconfiguring the site (including subdividing and consolidating parcels) to accommodate the proposed redevelopment/expansion. Mirabito Holdings LLC 315-725-3781 brett.hughes@mirabito.com 49 Court Street P.O. Box 5306 Binghamton NY 13902 Tompkins County DOT, NYSDEC 2.7 1.49 1.49 Educational Page 2 of 3 5. Is the proposed action, a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? NO YES N/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? NO YES 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? If Yes, identify: ________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? E Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? F Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near WKH site of the proposed action? NO YES 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: NO YES 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No, describe method for providing potable ZDWHU: _________________________________________ NO YES 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment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oes any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? E Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: _____________________ NO YES E V WKH SURMHFW VLWH RU DQ\SRUWLRQ RI LW ORFDWHG LQ RU DGMDFHQW WR DQ DUHD GHVLJQDWHG DV VHQVLWLYH IRU Area is served by TCAT Routes 17, 30, 51, 52, and 82 Please See Part 3 EEAF Mapper Summary Report Wednesday, November 23, 2022 9:13 AM Disclaimer:The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. Part 1 / Question 7 [Critical Environmental Area] No Part 1 / Question 12a [National or State Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sites] No Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Yes Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Regulated Waterbodies] No Part 1 / Question 15 [Threatened or Endangered Animal] No Part 1 / Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site] No 1ShortEnvironmentalAssessmentForm - EAF Mapper Summary Report Page 1 of 2 Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: Date: Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 - Impact Assessment Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept “Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?” No, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? 2.Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? 3.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? 4.Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? 5.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? 6.Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7.Will the proposed action impact existing: a. public / private water supplies? b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities? 8.Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? 9.Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? 10.Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? 11.Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Page 2 of 2 For every question in Part 2 that was answered “moderate to large impact may occur”, or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short- term, long-term and cumulative impacts. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 Determination of Significance Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project: Date: 1 Part 3 – Short Environmental Assessment Form – Attachment Evaluation of Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts Proposed Mirabito Redevelopment Project – Planning Board, February 18, 2025 The proposed action involves site plan, special permit, and subdivision approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (front yard setback, fence height, distance between drive-thru lane and residential zone), for modifications to the existing Mirabito convenience store and gas station, located at 301 Pine Tree Road/CR120. The project is a redevelopment and an expansion of existing commercial uses within two commercial zones, the Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone, and Community Commercial Zone. The project site currently contains an existing gas station, a vacant building that formerly contained a Burger King restaurant, parking lots, access drives, stormwater management facilities, and landscaping. The gas station is located on one parcel and the former Burger King building is located on an adjacent parcel. The project requires reconfiguring the parcels via the subdivision and consolidation process to ensure that the gas station portion of the project is sited within the Vehicle Fuel and Repair Commercial Zone, and the attached Burger King restaurant is sited within the Community Commercial Zone. This project site has been highly disturbed by commercial development. The gas station’s use has been on the site since at least 1970 (the layout and the business names have changed several times over the years). The former Burger King fast-food restaurant underwent an extensive site plan, special permit, and environmental review process in 1999. Both uses included the submission of traffic impact studies and the evaluation of impacts to community character, traffic, aesthetic/visual, archaeological resources, hydrological/stormwater management facilities, utilities, and natural resources. Impact on Use and Intensity of Use of Land The project will involve a slight increase in the intensity of use of land, as the redevelopment will combine existing and former uses. The project will include demolishing existing structures and constructing one building that will contain the gas station and restaurant use, rather than having two separate buildings for each use. The proposed combined-use building, at 6,000+/- square feet in size, will be larger than the individual buildings for each use combined (2,800sf for restaurant, 600sf for gas station; 3,400 sf total). The inside of the new building will contain a larger convenience store element and a smaller restaurant element than what currently exists (or, existed, in the case of the former restaurant, which contained 70 seats for patrons). The number of fuel pumps for the gas station will be the same, so there’s no increase in the gas station’s capacity. The new site layout will also contain four electric vehicle charging stations. The existing impervious surfaces will be modified to accommodate some changes to existing access points and parking areas, and there will be changes to existing stormwater management facilities. 2 Impact on Erosion, Flooding, Drainage Despite the increase in building footprint, impervious surfaces will only increase by 0.26+/- acres from 1.41 acres to 1.64 acres, according to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/SWPPP). This is because most of the proposed development is happening over existing impervious surfaces on a previously disturbed site. According to the SWPPP, “impervious area for the project site will consist of the rooftop area for the new convenience store, attached restaurant, proposed driveways, and associated parking and pedestrian facilities. Remaining disturbed areas will be utilized as a balance of green space, landscaping, and stormwater management areas.” The project proposes two bioretention filters and an underground stormwater detention chamber to control and treat runoff from the site. The Town of Ithaca Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed stormwater management facilities/SWPPP, and, per Town Code §228-10 Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sedimentation Control, has deemed it acceptable, provided that the items listed in the memo written by Davia O’Shea, P.E., Director of Engineering, and Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer, dated February 4, 2025, are addressed before the project returns to the Planning Board for final site plan approval. Impact on Traffic The application materials include a traffic report that analyzed traffic volumes at several site- specific intersections. The report also studied existing traffic volumes on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road and compared those volumes with historic traffic volumes to determine if adjustments would be necessary to account for impacts from the Covid pandemic. The reviewers discovered that the 2023 evening peak hour traffic counts were consistent with 2019 (pre- pandemic) data, so no additional adjustments were made. There are several areas in the traffic report that reference “bypass” traffic. Bypass traffic includes vehicles that are drawn into the project site as they are passing through the area via Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow Roads. This is a standard assessment for uses that are typically found within commercial centers and along commercial strips; that is, gas stations and fast-food restaurants are not special destinations that generate a lot of traffic over long periods of time. They are specifically designed to capture existing traffic from roadways where people are traveling back and forth to work or school on a regular basis. Hence, the uses are considered “bypass” traffic. The Burger King traffic study that was completed in 1999 asserted that most traffic would be bypass traffic. The current study, similarly, asserts that more than half of the new traffic associated with the project 63 vehicle trips entering and exiting the site during the morning peak hour and 59 additional trips entering /55 additional trips exiting during the evening peak hour) will also be bypass traffic. The report also asserts that a portion of the traffic will be internal to the site. That is, people will stop at the Burger King after getting gas or stopping at the convenience store. Since half of the trips will be drawn from existing traffic, the project is expected to only generate 27-32 new peak hour vehicle trips per day. According to the NYS DEC SEQR Workbook, “a project generating fewer than 3 100 peak hour vehicle trips per day will not result in significant increases in traffic.” Additionally, planning staff has researched town files but has not found any public complaints related to increased traffic associated with the 1999 Burger King project since its approval. This supports the assertion that the existing uses are not creating significant traffic impacts. This, and the small amount of traffic increase expected for the expanded use, will not cause significant adverse impacts on the existing roadway system or on pedestrians and others utilizing alternative modes of transportation to and from the project site. East Hill Plaza is well served by public transit, and there is an established system of sidewalks and walkways in this area. The proposal includes new walkway connections and crosswalk improvements that will enhance pedestrian connectivity, although it is acknowledged that the predominant clientele will still travel in vehicles. Of note, there is an existing crosswalk further north on Pine Tree Road that serves as a connection between the commercial developments on either side of the road. Pine Tree Road is a county road (CR 120), so its maintenance and improvement is under the jurisdiction of the Tompkins County Highway Department. It is understood from 2023 staff communication with the County Highway Department that the Department plans to fix and enhance that crosswalk in the future. In terms of internal site circulation, the parking and traffic flow is expected to be smooth with the revised parking and drive-thru design. The proposal accommodates all users, and the proposed drive lanes and parking spaces are sized and designed appropriately. The 2023 parking and drive thru design combined the parking lot with the restaurant drive-thru, with two rows of parking on either side of the drive-thru lane that could have been potentially hazardous (drivers backing out of parking spaces could collide with drive-thru vehicles entering/exiting the site). The revised parking design eliminates the parking on either side of the drive-thru lane and instead contains a dedicated drive-thru lane that is separate from the parking lot. Impact on Energy use The project is required to comply with the Town of Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. The application materials indicate that the project will follow the Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path to meet the town’s sustainability goals and energy efficiency requirements for commercial developments. The proposal is expected to earn points from some of the following improvements not an exhaustive list): heat pumps for space heating and service water heating, right-lighting, walkability, modest window-to-wall ratio, electric vehicle charging stations, custom energy improvements, efficient building shape, building envelope, mechanical systems, and other items in the Supplement. The project will also meet NY Stretch Code requirements. More specific information, including calculations, will be part of the building permit process for the project. Impact on Community Character, Historic, Archaeological, Architectural and Aesthetic Resources This project involves an expanded commercial use located within, and surrounded by, other existing commercial uses, in the largest intentional commercial zone in the Town of Ithaca. To that 4 end, there will be no change to the existing character of the community or neighborhood associated with the project. The project site and the area surrounding it have a long planning and development history. In 1968, the Town of Ithaca Town Board rezoned the properties that encompass East Hill Plaza from R-30 Residential Zone (currently Low Density Residential Zone) to Business C and D Zones currently Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone and Community Commercial Zone). The objective was to concentrate commercial development into clustered areas of the town instead of promoting strip commercial development, as is found along the Elmira Road corridor in the City of Ithaca and in many other places. The East Hill Plaza area was identified in the Town’s 1993 Comprehensive Plan as the largest of the commercial clusters in the town. The Town’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan further clarified and identified this area as “TND High Density” (Traditional Neighborhood Design), which envisions a redeveloped East Hill Plaza into a dense, pedestrian friendly area, with human scale design, an interconnected street network, and other features that foster a sense of community. The proposed Mirabito redevelopment project embodies the beginning elements of a future TND for the East Hill Plaza area. The proposed building is human-scale and purposely located close to the street corner to comply with TND principals, rather than set back as with conventional suburban settings. That is partly why the project requires a variance from the front yard setback provisions in the Town Code. The redeveloped site makes logical pedestrian connections to areas within and surrounding the site. The project includes architectural and landscaping details that improve the aesthetics of the plaza, which currently consists of 1970’s utilitarian architecture and a very large surface parking lot. The revised architectural drawings illustrate a four-sided building design, with architectural features that continue on all sides of the building, creating a more aesthetically pleasing view of the “back” of the building, which faces a highly visible corner of Ellis Hollow and Pine Tree Roads. Combining the gas station and restaurant uses with a shared access and common site features is an aesthetic and practical improvement over the current site situation. However, this will require an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals because the new proposed drive-thru will be located closer to a residential zone than the previous drive-thru. Potential impacts on community character and aesthetics can be mitigated by adding more landscaping along the frontages of the project site (including planting larger caliper trees than proposed and more variety in the landscaping), adding curbing along Ellis Hollow Road, and requiring all outdoor illumination to be 3000k maximum LED color temperature (provided that it does not result in more light poles, canopy lights, or wall packs). The lighting specification sheets provided in the application packet indicate 5000k color temperature for the proposed light poles and canopy lights. 5 Regarding Part 1, question 12b: The entire site has been previously disturbed, so if any archaeological resources had existed on the site, they would have been discovered by the prior disturbance. Impact on Existing Public Utilities The project site is currently served by municipal water and sewer facilities. The 2023 project proposed a car wash that would have exceeded the town sewer infrastructure capacity along the main that serves the site. The car wash portion of the project has since been eliminated. The revised Engineering Department memo, dated February 4, 2025, no longer indicates concern associated with utilities. The memo notes that an in depth review of proposed water and sanitary sewer services will be reviewed during the plumbing permit stage of the project, which will occur after the Planning Board review process. There are no steep slopes, streams, wetlands, waterbodies, endangered or threatened species, Unique Natural Areas, forested areas, or other environmentally sensitive resources on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Project impacts are expected to be small, given the above analysis and the implementation of proposed mitigations that have been identified. Pg. 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision, Special Permit Mirabito Redevelopment Project 301 Pine Tree Road Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-1.121, 62.-2-1.13, 62.-2-1.22 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 18, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan, Special Permit, and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the proposed Mirabito convenience store with gasoline sales and Burger King drive-thru restaurant, located at 301 Pine Tree Road. The project involves demolishing the existing 600+/ square foot gas station building and fuel canopy, and the 2,800+/- square foot former Burger King building, and redeveloping the site with a new 6,000+/- square foot building containing a convenience store and restaurant with drive-thru, gasoline sales, fuel canopy, electric vehicle charging stations, stormwater facilities, sidewalks/pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner; James Ballantyne, Napierala Consulting, PC, Applicant; Brett Hughes, Mirabito Energy Products, Agent, 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to the project, has, on February 18, 2025, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, 3. The Planning Board, on February 18, 2025, has reviewed and accepted as adequate: a binder of materials titled “Site Plan Review Materials For Proposed Mirabito Redevelopment Project, 301 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850,” including set of revised drawings titled “Proposed Mirabito Redevelopment Project, 301 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State,” with sheets C-0, C-1, C-2, C-2.1, C-3 through C-14, prepared by Napierala Consulting, dated 05 May, 2023 and most recently revised 1/14/2025; architectural plans titled “Convenience Center W/Fuel, Mirabito, Ithaca, NY,” including sheets A-101 through A-116, prepared by Delta Engineers, Architects & Surveyors, dated 02/06/2025; a subdivision plat titled “Subdivision Map, For Cornell University Located At, No. 1010 Ellis Hollow Road and No. 301 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 4/17/2023 and revised 6/15/2023; and other application materials, and 4. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §§239- l et seq., and such Department responded in a January 31, 2025, letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact; Pg. 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics. The project involves a subdivision and consolidation of adjacent parcels to accommodate the combined proposed commercial uses, which are uses that already exist separately on each parcel (or formerly existed, in the case of the Burger King). The properties are located in a commercial zone, and their physical site characteristics are appropriate for the proposed project. B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed structure design is more compatible with the surrounding area than the 1970’s architecture that dominates the East Hill Plaza. The proposal includes modern architectural designs that match some of the other nearby commercial uses. The site layout has been specifically structured to be compatible with the Traditional Neighborhood Development goals of the Town Comprehensive Plan. C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes, vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the zone. The proposed uses will be the same as the existing uses – gas station, convenience store, and drive- thru restaurant. Operations in connection with the uses will be similar to existing. All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the Town Outdoor Lighting Law. D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services, roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. All community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to accommodate the use. E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan. F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed for emergency vehicles. The project has been carefully designed for safe vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and parking and loading facilities. All accessways have been safely designed for emergency vehicles. G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible. There is minimal tree and vegetation loss associated with the project, including removal of mature Norway Spruce trees, which are on the list of Invasive Plants of the Ithaca New York Area (2017). The project includes some landscaping. The applicant may be required to increase the amount of landscaping and the size of proposed trees before consideration of final site plan approval. H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270, Zoning. Pg. 3 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Mirabito Redevelopment Project, as shown on the submitted plans referenced in Whereas #3 above, with the following conditions to be met: Prior to Final Site Plan/Final Subdivision Approval a. Submission of a revised set of coordinated site plan, civil, and architectural drawings that show all the same elements of the proposal (e.g., Site Plan C-3 should show striping across crosswalk per A-111 rendering; and rendering A-116 should show striped crosswalk across Ellis Hollow Road), b. Revision of the lighting plan to indicate a 3000k LED color temperature for the proposed canopy lights, light poles, and building lighting, c. Submission of all site details including (but not limited to) exterior furnishings, patio furnishings, bicycle racks, walls, railings, bollards, and paving materials, d. Submission of a construction staging plan for the project, along with a truck hauling plan that shows the proposed truck routes for any materials entering or exiting the project site pre-construction and during construction, e. Submission for review and approval by the Town Engineering Department, of all the items related to SWPPP that are noted on the memo written by David O’Shea, Town Engineer, and Justin McNeal, Civil Engineer, dated February 5, 2025, f. Submission of proof from the Tompkins County Highway Department that the project improvements proposed within the county right-of way are acceptable, g. Submission, for review and approval by the Director of Code Enforcement, of a fire apparatus access plan, showing the Ithaca Fire Department auto turn path, h. Submission, for review and approval by the Director of Code Enforcement, of fire flow calculations with the method(s) utilized to verify compliance with the 2020 NYS Fire Code Section 507.1, i. Granting of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit: j. Submission, review, execution, and filing of an Operation, Maintenance and Reporting agreement for the proposed stormwater management facilities, with the Town of Ithaca, specifying the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system, including: i. Submission of an access easement, or other mechanism, to assure Town of Ithaca access to the stormwater facilities, ii. Review and approval of the access easement and the Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement by the Attorney for the Town and the Town Engineer, and Pg. 4 iii. Town Board authorization to allow the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary easements and the Stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement associated with the project, k. Submission for signing by the Planning Board Chair of an original and three dark lined prints of the approved final subdivision map, revised to state “Pine Tree Road,” instead of Judd Falls Road,” prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office; and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Planning Department, l. Within six months of the final approval, consolidation of Parcels 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C on the approved subdivision plat, and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the completed Tompkins County Consolidated Request form, m. Approval by the Town Board, full execution and filing of any water easements granted from Cornell University to the Town of Ithaca for the maintenance and access to the water infrastructure; such easement(s) shall be satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering, n. Submission of a copy of any required highway work permits from the Tompkins County Highway Department. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 18, 2023 7:00 P.M. Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live). AGENDA 1. Persons to be heard. 2. SEQR Determination: Special Permit – 130 Forest Home Drive 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The proposal is the consideration of a Special Permit for a Professional office (real estate and property management) located at 130 Forest Home Drive. The Town Board recently rezoned this property by superimposing a Limited Historic Commercial Overlay District over the base Medium Density Residential Zone, which allows the Professional office use following Special Permit approval by the Planning Board. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Lirong (Vicky) Wu, Owner/Applicant; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, Agent. 4. SEQR Determination: Mirabito Redevelopment Project – 301 Pine Tree Road 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan, Special Permit, and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the proposed Mirabito Convenience store with gasoline sales, including fuel canopy and Car wash, located at 301 Pine Tree Road. The project involves demolishing the existing building and re-developing the site with a new 6,600+/- square foot Mirabito Convenience store with gasoline sales, including fuel canopy and Car wash, along with an adjoining fast-food restaurant with drive-thru. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner; Mirabito Energy Products – Brett Hughes, Applicant/Agent. 6. Approval of Minutes: 7. Other Business. 8. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY CHRIS BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US. A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town’s website at https://www.town.ithaca.ny.us/meeting-calendar-agendas/ under the calendar meeting date. MINUTES FROM 7-18-23 PB MEETING PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD July 18, 2023 MINUTES Present: Greg Lindquist, Chair: Members Ariel Casper, Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant (Video), Bill Arms and Kelda McGurk and Fred Wilcox CJ Randall, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O’Shea, Engineering and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Item 1. Persons to be heard – None Item 2. Special Permit for a Professional office (real estate and property management) located at 130 Forest Home Drive. The Town Board recently rezoned this property by superimposing a Limited Historic Commercial Overlay District over the base Medium Density Residential Zone, which allows the Professional office use following Special Permit approval by the Planning Board. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Lirong (Vicky) Wu, Owner/Applicant; Noah Demarest, STREAM Collaborative, Agent. Mr. Demarest said they just worked with the Town Board to establish the Limited Historic Overlay District and are now looking to get a Special Use Permit from this Board. Working with Ms. Wu and the Town, we have developed an assessment of the current conditions, a preservation plan and a maintenance plan. The packet of information submitted is very detailed and as the use is not really changing, he was available to answer any questions from the Board. SEQR Determination Mr. Wilcox asked how the use was going to change from yesterday to tomorrow if this is approved. Mr. Demarest responded that it is not a noticeable change as Cornell used to use it as office space with rental units above and Ms. Wu will also have those uses, but Cornell listed it as an educational use”, and this will not be. PB Resolution 2023-022: SEQR Special Permit 130 Forest Home Drive – Professional Office Tax Parcel 66.-1-6 Whereas: MINUTES FROM 7-18-23 PB MEETING PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 6 Item 4. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan, Special Permit, and Preliminary Subdivision approval for the proposed Mirabito Convenience store with gasoline sales, including fuel canopy and Car wash, located at 301 Pine Tree Road. The project involves demolishing the existing building and re-developing the site with a new 6,600+/- square foot Mirabito Convenience store with gasoline sales, including fuel canopy and Car wash, along with an adjoining fast-food restaurant with drive-thru. This is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner; Mirabito Energy Products – Brett Hughes, Applicant/Agent. Mr. Ballantyne noted the project members at the meeting or on zoom. Justin Blomquist Brett Hughs, Mirabito; Jeremy, Cornell Mr. Ballantyne went through the presentation slides, depicting the existing property and the current plan for expansion of the Mirabito service station. This includes a subdivision piece, with one parcel remaining with Cornell and the remaining two parcels under this project. The existing Mirabito and Burger King will be consolidated into one structure; expanded fuel pumps, an electric charging station and a single bay car wash. The parcel zoning delineation line is important because one side has a gas station permitted and the other side does not, which played a large part in the layout of the site. Mr. Ballantyne went through the stormwater pollution and prevention plans and ended with a rendering of the site. Discussion Mr. Arms asked about the difference between the plans submitted and the rendering being shown. Mr. Ballantyne stated the rendering was for graphic presentation only, the plans submitted are for the site layout under review. The rendering is not colored properly, for example, the stormwater retention will not be blue/water, it will run dry. Mr. Arms asked about the parking areas also, and Mr. Ballantyne again stated that the rendering is not accurate to the current plan as it has morphed through the process and just to give an idea about the buildings. Mr. Wilcox stated that the buildings are not the same as depicted in the drawings submitted either. PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 7 Mr. Ballantyne responded that the rendering is to show the footprint and follows the site plan as submitted. Mr. Wilcox started with the signage, saying that sign has to go. Mr. Ballantyne responded that the development team will be working on that. Ms. Balestra stated that the sign law was revised to have Staff and Code Enforcement review signs under particular design criteria and the signage could be removed to not distract from the review of the building siting. Ms. Kaufman stated she had quite a few issues with the architectural design of the buildings, noting that during sketch plan, it was noted that this is the “gateway” to Cornell and was meant to be an inviting and pleasing area. She went through the materials used and the fake windows, and the back of the building, which is the first thing you see when coming from the east is the back of the building and drive through. Mr. Ballantyne said he will take notes for the team architect, who said he has vetted these renderings with Cornell, but he was not involved in those discussions. Ms. Kaufman was concerned about roof-top machinery and Mr. Ballantyne said he thought that was the purpose of the varying heights of the rendered roof tops. Ms. Kaufman responded that she would like to see accurate elevations and details on HVAC and other equipment. She was also concerned about the parking and ingress/egress lanes and cuts; but reiterated that her biggest concern was the road-side view and the boxiness of the architect and mix of materials. Mr. Lindquist stated that he agreed with the concerns about the stacking for the drive through and the way that they exit, directly into the center of a two-row parking area where children could be coming and going from the restaurant. Ms. Bageant said that this is not what she pictured as a “gateway to Cornell.” The point about the back of the building, which is actually the front of the building that everyone will see needs attention to it. She had questions about the planting plan and the sidewalk and although she understands the rendering of the building was for size, but, other aspects of the rendering do not match the site plan submission, which is very confusing for people who are not used to reading plans. Ms. Bageant said she thought there should be as many plantings as possible and an inviting space for pedestrians and that should be laid out very carefully. PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 8 She shares the concerns about the parking and the drive through as well. Mr. Wilcox stated that he was particularly unhappy that it was decided that the most important constraint is the existing zoning demarcation. That has really hamstrung you in terms of your design, and the mess near the drive through is an accident waiting to happen and a real problem. You have gone to such and extent to avoid any sort of change in the zoning or approvals from the Planning Board for waivers from parking and it needs to be redesigned. He asked where the fuel tankers will access the site to deliver fuel. Mr. Ballantyne showed where that would happen. They are on the passenger side and they have access through Pine Tree Road and a counter-clockwise turn back on to Ellis Hollow Rd with no need to back up. Mr. Wilcox asked if the turn radius’ has been discussed or cleared with the Fire Department. Mr. Ballantyne stated that they had not, but had measured out trucks, one of which is the fueling tanker, that are bigger than anything the Fire Department has. Mr. Wilcox suggested a condition should be added to require an official comment from the Fire Chief. He turned to the carwash and asked about the small building to the south of it. Mr. Ballantyne responded that the transformer for the electric charging spots used to be very large and that is a place holder for that, although we do not know what the size needed will be as of yet. Mr. Wilcox asked if they will be offering diesel or kerosine. Mr. Ballantyne responded that they will offer diesel at one or two of the dispensers. Mr. Wilcox said we have heard about an outdoor dining area, and that does not bother him. Access from the site to the East Hill Plaza, which seems to be just to the right of the car wash; is that going to be the only access? The existing access will be removed? (yes) He explained that that access was one of the reasons he voted against the existing Burger King. Mr. Wilcox stated that he doesn’t understand the proposed subdivision line as it has an odd jog around the building. Mr. Ballantyne responded that the building has to stay within the Mirabito leased park because for us to demo that building, it has to be on our property…. PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 9 Jeremy Thomas from Cornell Real Estate came to the front and explained that it is just an easier transaction and the need to run through the access road is to ensure whatever is built in the future on the remaining Cornell parcel has access to that through road and entrance to that parcel. Mr. Wilcox said, in summary, the biggest need is to redesign the area coming out of the drive- through and into the parking area, because, as stated, that is an accident waiting to happen. Ms. Kaufman added that it would be nice to add some picnic areas for the community that is nearby, especially the senior housing. Mr. Arms spoke again, saying that Cornell had some very appealing plans for this area in its Comprehensive Plan with mixed use and walkability and residential; very similar to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and he asked if that was completely dead. There is no walking access between the Plaza and this site. This looks like one development that doesn’t take into account any future developments in the area. Mr. Thomas responded that “gateway” is an unfortunate word, and that that probably came from us, so it isn’t a criticism of its use, but I think it implies something different than what the University's vision of this is. We don't see this as a gateway to the University. That was an effort to acknowledge that a whole lot of people coming to the University to drive through here and to acknowledge the importance of the visual of this building as you come in on those various roads. This is not the kind of gateway treatment you might see someplace else that's actually closer to campus. We have known for a long time that the visual appeal will be very important and we want to improve it, but, the site is very dated and needs to be improved. Part of that discussion was one of putting the building on the depicted side of the pump so that when you come up these roads, you're not seeing gas pumps, but seeing a built structure and a mixed use. How this looks on the backside and landscaped is critically important. Mr. Thomas said Cornell has not officially approved these designs, yet we see design as an interactive process and wanted the feedback that you are giving tonight and we will continue discussions with the Mirabito design team to incorporate the feedback we have heard. He added that this site has been under discussion for maybe decades before, and most recently, there was in intense charrette process with a lot of very good ideas. There are multiple parcels here, and they can be developed as housing or other commercial uses in the future, but, right now, the financial environment we are in right now does not support that type of full-scale redevelopment, but rather a piecemeal approach. We do want to make sure that this piece of the development will integrate in the future with other developments on the site. We have made investments in the Plaza itself, spending over $3m to replace the roof and a lot of our plans rely on people returning to in-person work as the vitality of the plaza relies on a workforce working and shopping there. There is a need for more fuel pumps in this area. PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 10 Ms. Bageant asked about the access point to the Plaza which looks like it will become problematic at peak times. Ms. Balestra stated that the plans submitted show that the way into the car wash are on the other side. Ms. Bageant said she had no concerns then, and she was happy to hear an update on Cornell’s plan, but it doesn’t seem to fit the vision and she would really like to have Cornell work toward the vision better here. Mr. Wilcox stated that he didn’t feel that the Board could act on this tonight given the number of comments and the need to redesign and submit revised plans. He added that we should give the public an opportunity to talk as well, so the developers hear their concerns. Discussion followed between Staff and Members, and it was determined that new plans would be needed to move forward on an action. Mr. Arms added that he felt the applicants should really take another look at the subdivision lines to remove some of the constraints they are working under. It is not the concept that is being discouraged, that has been part of the vision for decades, it is the details as presented. Mr. Lindquist asked if changing the subdivision would alleviate a lot of the issues. Mr. Ballantyne responded that the zone change process is a lengthy process and there is no guarantee and when discussions began, the snowball started rolling toward this iteration. A lot of money has already been invested by Mirabito, and a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Town Board would go a long way toward being more comfortable with looking at going the other route of a zoning change through the Town Board. He added that they also had to look at parking spaces required and with a zoning change or planned development zone, there might be options there. That said, he didn’t believe anything stated tonight is a deal breaker, we just have to go back and integrate those comments. Mr. Ballantyne said he can not make that call, but the discussion will be had. Mr. Casper asked if he understood correctly that Cornell has not approved of the architectural designs yet? Mr. Ballantyne responded that they have had discussions with them, but they felt that it would be best to get comments from this Board before getting final approval and bringing it to them. Mr. Wilcox reminded the applicants that this is a preliminary approval, not a sketch plan or an appearance to get comments from this Board. Mr. Casper said he would not be comfortable voting on this if Cornell did not approve the design being presented. PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 11 Mr. Wilcox noted that the Planning Board cannot take into consideration the fact that there is another car wash close by, nor that the P&C Fresh could be impacted by an expanded Mirabito and read from a court opinion emphasizing that municipal boards cannot deny a development solely upon the anticipation that it would adversely affect existing retail markets. Mr. Wilcox asked if the length of the Engineering Memo was an indication of anything and Mr. O’Shea responded that because a lot of it will be underground, it requires more detailed review and that is all. Mr. Moseley added that the Town has jurisdiction over fire protection access, and he will need details on any canopy over the pumps and some details on that and any fencing and finally, additional measurements on the buildings. Ms. Randall summarized the information being requested for the applicants, many of which are in the draft resolution they can refer to, but also, maybe examples of the materials being used and color choices and cut sheets on all mechanicals and detailed landscaping and soft scaping plans. Ms. Kaufman moved tabling of the action until such time as the applicants submitted revised and updated plans, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous. Mr. Lindquist then turned to the members of the public, and permitted them to comment, even though this is not a public hearing. A public hearing will be held if and when a SEQR determination is held and made. Public Comment Resident, spoke saying that she is familiar with the concept of a “highest and better use” when land gets redeveloped to some other purpose, and this is not that. This is the same use packaged in a pretty way. The only difference is the addition of EV charging stations. The renderings look like any strip mall in America. There is nothing unique about this, and there is nothing forward-moving in this. She suggested that if it can not be denied under that premise, there are green-energy improvements that could be required such as green roofs, building materials and carbon neutral appliances and utilities. Landscaping and pollinator gardens; bioswale improvements that address oils from the cars and permeable pavers. It doesn’t make sense to have a convenience store next to a super market; this does not add to the community and there are better uses for the parcel. Marilyn Dispensa, spoke, saying that she has lived in the neighborhood for 19 years and she is not against the fast-food store or gas station, but she was also looking forward to the vision that has been out there for years. There are a lot of people in Ellis Hollow and we don’t have anywhere to go to get take-out food, or have a drink, a bakery or a pizza place. She felt there PB 2023-07-18 (Filed 8/22) Pg. 12 was a lot of money to be made with a better plan for this area and she hoped we could be more creative and make that area an area where people want to go. Doug Biancy spoke, saying that he lives a mile away and this not a gateway to our community or neighborhood and this proposal belongs on an exit ramp or a 4-lane highway. It is an inappropriate cornerstone. This project belongs on the other side near Walgreens instead of the corner and he asked if that had been looked at. He added that he owns the car wash nearby, and his first reaction was “go for it” but these type of convenience store car washes give us a bad name. They are not maintained or managed well, they don’t have the training or knowledge about how they work, although he understood their wish to get every profit they can from the site. Mr. Biancy said there are other needed services in the area; an ice cream shop, a diner, anything. Save half million on the single bay car wash and do something like that. Barbara spoke via ZOOM, asking questions about questions in the chat function to which Mr. Lindquist responded that they will not be addressed. She asked about the blue areas on the plans and Mr. Wilcox and Mr. O’Shea explained the retention ponds and how they work. She asked about the lawsuit re. Walmart that was mentioned, but that was denied, so she was confused how this can’t be. Mr. Wilcox and Ms. Brock explained that the Walmart was denied for other reasons, one of which was the views from the trails in the NYS Parks. Mr. Wilcox added, be careful what you wish for. We are a planning board. We are appointed members of the public. We are not elected members. As a result, we don't have the discretion that many people would like us to have. For example, we just can't look at and say, I don't like having a Burger King in this location, therefore I'm going to vote against it. I can't do that. I'm a planning board member, so that is not something that I can do. I'm bound by the laws and the ordinances, either the Town’s, State’s or Federal and I must work within them, so it is important you understand that. There were no other public comments. Approval of Minutes: There were changes to the August 16th regarding members present/voting. Motion to approve the three submitted draft minutes as changed by Mr. Lindquist, seconded by Mr. Wilcox, unanimous with Ms. Bageant abstaining. Other Business 110 FAYETTE S TREET M ANLIUS, NEW Y ORK 13104 PH 315-682-5580 • FAX 315-682-5544 • EMAIL:MNAP@NAPCON.COM December 27, 2024 C.J. Randall Director of Planning Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re Mirabito Energy Products – 301 Pine Tree Road Dear Ms. Randall, On behalf of our client and in continuing the review of the project, please find enclosed updated submittal materials for the renovation/redevelopment of the existing Mirabito kiosk fueling station into a modern convenience center with fuel offerings. This project was originally submitted to the Town last year and presented to the Planning Board on July 18, 2023. Beyond finalizing the engineering details of the project, Mirabito Energy Products has been working closely with Cornell on layout and site aesthetics for the last 18 months to provide an equally acceptable development project. As such, the following is a summary of the updates for the project: The proposed project includes the redevelopment of the existing Mirabito convenience center located at 301 Pine Tree Road and the adjacent former Burger King restaurant at 1010 Ellis Hollow Road. The proposed redevelopment will include the construction of a new 6,000 SF (previously proposed as 6,600 SF) convenience center with drive-thru Burger King restaurant, an outdoor patio area, a new fuel canopy, EV chargers, stormwater management areas, and associated pedestrian facilities. The redevelopment includes a lot line adjustment coordinated with the Town and the owner and of 301 Pine Tree Road and 1010 Ellis Hollow Road. The proposed lot line adjustment would create one ±1.49-acre parcel at 301 Pine Tree Road and one ±1.15-acre parcel at 1010 Ellis Hollow Road. The proposed building and associated site features will be located wholly within the new ±1.49- acre 301 Pine Tree Road parcel. A negative SEQR determination for the project was granted by the Planning Board on 07/18/2024, and no significant changes have occurred to the proposed project since this determination was made. A traffic impact study was prepared by Gordon Stansbury, P.E. of GTS Consulting and was previously provided to the Planning Board for review. The study found no traffic related impacts are anticipated for the proposed project. This submittal includes the following: Revised site plans, per Town Engineer and owner comments Revised SWPPP, per Town Engineer comments Formal response letter addressing Town Engineer comments 3D architectural renderings, elevations, and floor plans of the proposed convenience center. The rendering images that have been prepared reflect the architectural style and design approved by the owner. This approval was requested by the Planning Board at the last July 18, 2023 Board meeting. We look forward to continuing the project’s review with the Town Planning Board at the upcoming Village Board meeting on 01/21/2025. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to our office at (315) 682-5580. Thank you. Respectfully, NAPIERALA CONSULTING Professional Engineer, P.C. Matthew R. Napierala Matthew R. Napierala, P.E. Managing Engineer / President 110 FAYETTE S TREET M ANLIUS, NEW Y ORK 13104 PH 315-682-5580 • FAX 315-682-5544 • EMAIL:MNAP@NAPCON.COM December 26, 2024 Dave O’Shea, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Town of Ithaca Department of Engineering 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Mirabito Energy Products Redevelopment, 301 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Dear Mr O’Shea, Our office has received your department’s comments posted to the Town of Ithaca’s OpenGov portal on 06/13/2023 and offer the following responses: General Comments: 1) If spoils from the project will be deposited within the Town of Ithaca, the spoils site must be included in the SWPPP and further approval of the site may be required. Noted. Section V.B.8 of the SWPPP has been revised specifying if spoils from the project site are to be deposited within the Town of Ithaca, the site location must first be shared and approved by both the Town of Ithaca and the Engineer. Water & Sewer Comments: 1) There are numerous downstream sections within the sanitary sewer collection system that are at and/or near capacity. An increase in flow will not be approved until the sewer system has been upgraded to have adequate capacity. Noted and concur. 2) An in-depth review of the proposed water and sanitary sewer services will be reviewed once an External Plumbing Permit Application has been submitted. Noted and concur. 3) Existing water and sewer services will be required to be removed all the way to the respective utility main for both parcels unless being reused. Noted and concur. Sheet C-2.1 has been revised accordingly to reflect sewer/water utility removal and notes have also been added. 4) Please ensure that the water main and associated infrastructure is on all the plan sheets. Noted. The plan set has been revised to include the water main and associated infrastructure on all plan sheets. OBSOLETE (but part of current application submission) 5) Trees and plantings shall not be placed with the Town of Ithaca utility easements. Please update the landscape plan accordingly. Noted. The landscaping plan (sheet C-7) has been revised accordingly. 6) Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits a water easement must be executed over the existing water main and appurtenances. Noted. We will coordinate with the project surveyor to ensure that the appropriate water easements have been executed over the existing water main and appurtenances prior to any issuance of demolition/building permits. C-6 has been revised to show the assumed 20’ water utility easement over the existing and proposed water main and appurtenances. SWPPP comments: 1) Update the SWPPP to identify the party responsible for long-term maintenance of the post practices and conveyance systems. A stormwater maintenance and reporting agreement and access easement will need to be executed if one does not exist prior to the issuance of a building permit. Noted. Section IV.D lists the property owner and/or tenant as the party responsible for long- term maintenance of the post-construction stormwater management practices and conveyance systems. We will coordinate with the Town to meet all necessary requirements needed for the proposed conveyance system connection. 2) Update section D. of the narrative to include the following: a. Annual inspections of all permanent stormwater practices and conveyance systems by a qualified professional. An inspection report shall be generated and provided to the Town in accordance with the reporting agreement. Noted. Section I.D & I.C of the SWPPP has been revised accordingly. b. Inclusion of the storm chambers. Noted. Section I.C now specifies inspection procedures are to be conducted for the storm chambers. Section IV.D.4 has been revised to include information regarding the inspection and maintenance procedures for the underground detention chamber system. c. Inclusion of the bioretention pretreatment devices. Noted. Section I.D now specifies inspections are to be conducted for the bioretention pretreatment device. Section IV.D.5 and added Appendix H have been revised to include the operation and maintenance manual for the First Defense® pretreatment device. d. Inclusion of the existing offsite storm water basins that are being utilized for routing. Noted. Section I.D now specifies inspections are to be conducted for the existing off site stormwater basins utilized for routing. 3) Update the narrative and plan set to identify the need for MS4 approval prior to NOI and NOT submissions to DEC. Noted. Section I.B and ESC note 13 on sheet C-14 of the plan set has been updated to include specification that the MS4 approval is required prior to submission of NOI/NOT to NYSDEC. MS4 accpetance form has also been included within Appendix E. 4) Update the narrative and plan set to incorporate the requirements that a trained contractor shall perform daily inspections of the erosion and sediment control devices. Noted. Section I.D has been revised to include that a “trained contractor” shall perform daily inspections of the erosion and sediment control devices and now lists the requirements of the contractor to retain a “trained contractor” on-site during daily operations. 5) Clarify in the narrative that the weekly inspection reports generated by the qualified inspector shall be onsite and kept current. Noted. Section I.F.1 has been revised to specify that the weekly inspection reports by the qualified inspector shall be kept onsite and current. 6) Update the narrative to identify the need for the owner/operator to retain a copy of the SWPPP for a minimum of 5 years. Noted. Section I.F.2 has been revised to include wording that the owner/operator is to retain a copy of the SWPPP for a minimum of 5 years following the NYSDEC receiving a completed NOT for the project. 7) Provide rip-rap sizing calculation and pipe flow calculations Noted. Rip rap sizing and respective pipe flow calculations have been added within the new Section IV.E, titled “Rip Rap and Pipe Flow Calculations”, and included as detail 4 on sheet C-13. 8) Provide calculations showing the proposed inlets are adequate to capture the storm discharge as modeled. The inlets need to be sized appropriately to capture the pre-treatment volume. They also need to be sized appropriately to capture and convey larger storm events without bypassing the inlets and proceeding to the bioretention basin. Noted. The catch basin pipe network has been revised, now showing 18” connecting pipes. Additionally, the proposed condition HydroCAD model has been revised to now model each catch basin and its respective tributary area. Each CB was modeled as a pond with available storage within each structure and the ponding depth available around each structure grate. The proposed condition HydroCAD model now shows that during the 100-year rainfall event, the peak elevation of ponding depth at each catch basin stays within their respective available storage around the grate without bypassing the inlet. The internal weir within OS-3 diverts the WQv into BF-1 while diverting the larger rainfall events towards OS-1 and the underground chamber system. The weir invert elevation 929.4’) was determined using Appendix B.2 from the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual. From the design manual: CN=1,000/[10+5P+10Q-10Q(Q2+1.25QP)1/2] Where, CN=curve number P=rainfall (in) = 1.0” Q=Runoff volume (in)=(P)(Rv) = 0.95” CN=1,000/[10+5(1.0”)+10(0.95”)-10((0.95”)2+1.25(0.95”)(1.0”)0.5] CN=99.6=Using 98 from TR-55 Peak discharge to be utilized in orifice equation: Qp=(qu)(A)(WQv) Where, qu=unit peak discharge, from Exhibit 4-II in TR-55 = 1,000csm/in A=drainage area (sq mi.) = 0.000625 mi2) WQv = Water quality volume (watershed inches) = (P)(Rv) = 0.95” Qp=(1,000csm/in)(0.000625 mi2)(0.95”) Qp=0.59 cfs With Qp, we utilized the orifice equation to set the invert of the overflow weir: Qp=(Cd)(A)[(2)(g)(h)]0.5 Where, Cd=Orifice coefficient = 0.6 A=area of the outlet pipe = 0.785ft2 for 12” pipe) g=gravitational acceleration = 32.2ft/sec2 h=hydraulic head above pipe midpoint h=[Qp/(Cd)(A)]2/[(2)(g)] h=[0.59/(0.6)(0.785ft2)]2/[(2)(32.2)] h=0.024’ Overflow weir elevation within diversion structure OS-3 set to 929.4, approximately 0.525’ above the 12” outlet pipe’s 928.9’ invert out towards BF-1. 9) Please review the order of the diversion structure and pretreatment device. Typically, the pretreatment devices would be “offline” from the main conveyance system, downstream of the diversion structure. Noted. Sheet C-4 has been revised to now show the pretreatment unit downstream of OS-3’s WQv outlet. 10) Review the Tc for DA-3. The flow path appears short in length. Also, a portion of the path appears to be shallow concentrated flow or channel flow, not sheet flow. Noted. The Tc path for PRO-DA-1, PRO-DA-2A and PRO-DA-3 have been revised on Figure 9 within the project SWPPP and the HydroCAD model due to site layout changes. Flow type for DA-3 has been revised accordingly to include shall concentrated flow. 11) Revise the inlet protection detail to identify that Type B is only allowed in paved areas. Noted. Detail 4 on sheet C-14 has been revised to include a note that Type B is only allowed in paved areas. 12) Update the erosion and sediment control plan to have construction entrances. Noted. Sheet C-5 has been revised accordingly. 13) Provide additional information, calculations, and grading/elevations at the NW entrance. There is not enough information provided to ensure the 100-year storm does not leave the site at this location. Noted. Sheet C-4 grading contours have been revised and additional spot elevations have been included to show that drainage is directed towards Bioretention Filter-1. 14) Provide additional information on how the underground chambers will function. There does not appear to be piping connecting various chambers. How does the water get to the other storage chambers? The inlet manifold shown on detail 2 on sheet C-12 provides 12” bypass pipes into the other storage chambers. Water primarily enters the main pretreatment isolator row via a 24” inlet pipe (shown as the hatched chamber on detail 2). Each chamber (SC-740) is fully embedded in drainage stone. As water enters the system, it will drain into the stone layer and spread out across the impermeable base (specified on detail 5 on sheet C-12) of the system, filling up each chamber via the drainage layer and perforated sidewalls, and equilibrating across the entire system. 15) Review the inverts of the chambers and the bioretention basin. During large storm events it appears that water may back up into the bioretention filter piping. The stormwater management system and HydroCAD model has been revised. More detailed modeling of the site’s stormwater management system now shows that there is no back up of stormwater into the BF-1 from the underground chamber system (100-yr rainfall event peak elevation of 925.2 in the underground system. Invert of BF-1 outlet pipe is 925.3). 16) There are various minor discrepancies between inverts and rims within the plan set and model. Please verify that all correspond prior to resubmission. Noted. The model and all plan sheet inverts have been reviewed and revised for consistency. 17) Provide the watershed boundaries for the DA1 sub areas. Noted. The watershed areas have been revised with the new site layout and are now included as the blue dotted lines shown on Figure 9 within the SWPPP. Drainage land cover is detailed within the HydroCAD model. 18) Update the narrative and plan set to include winter stabilization requirements. Noted. Section G executive summary and Section IV.F of the SWPPP and the additional note #14 on sheet C-14 have been revised accordingly to specify winter stabilization requirements for the project. 19) Update the plan set to include requirements to protect the bioretention soil until permanent site stabilization has been achieved. Noted. The sheet C05 and note 9 on detail 1 on sheet C-11 has been revised to specify filters are only to be constructed following full stabilization of all upstream areas. 20) Provide details and calculations that are in accordance with the NYS Standard and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control for the sediment basins and how they will be dewatered. Noted. The plans and SWPPP have been revised accordingly with requested information. Proposed grading of the temp. sediment basins is now on sheet C-5 and sheet C-13 has been revised to include basin details and calculations. 21) Update the modeling for SMA-1. This appears to overtop at 932’. Noted. The design of bioretention filter-2 has been revised to now directly discharge into the existing stormwater structure to the south of the filter along Ellis Hollow Road. SMA-1 is no longer to be utilized as a part of the project’s stormwater management system. 22) Revise the modeled exfiltration rate for the bioretention to be in accordance with the Design Manual. The manual lists a rate of 0.5 ft/day, which equated to 0.25 in/hr. Noted. The HydroCAD model has been revised to now utilize a 0.5 ft/day exfiltration rate through the filter media. 23) Provide stage storage model outputs to verify 75% of the WQv is held above the mulch layer Noted. Page 6-55 in Section 6.4, Chapter 6 of the NYS Stormwater Design Manual states that providing storage of 75% of the WQv pertains only to sand/organic filters. The proposed bioretention filters have been designed and sized in accordance with the established treatment area equations provided in Chapter 6 of the Design Manual and according to treatment requirements outlined on page 6-57 of Section 6.4, Chapter 6. 24) Provide calculations showing at least 25% of the WQv is being pre-treated at each bioretention basin. Noted. Section III.F of the SWPPP has been revised accordingly to include the below pretreatment information for both bioretention filters. Bioretention Filter-1 Pretreatment of the WQV is provided by the proposed pretreatment unit (design based upon Hydro International’s 3’ dia. First Defense Optimum unit, or approved equal) upstream of the discharge point into the filter. The unit is specified to handle a peak flow of up to 15 cfs, with typical NJDEP certified treatment of flowrates up to 1.02 cfs. Required pretreatment for BF-1 equates to 25% of the 0.59 cfs peak flow (from comment response #8 above), or 0.148 cfs, which the unit is capable of providing. Bioretention Filter-2 Pretreatment for bioretention filter-2 is provided by the 3’ wide, 1’ deep pea gravel diaphragm surrounding the bioretention filter. With an assumed porosity of 0.40, this diaphragm a provides pretreatment volume of 257.8 ft3 (25% required equates to 196.3 ft3 within DA-2). 25) A 6” stone drop entrance is required for overland flow into the bioretention basins. Noted. The plan set has been revised to show stone drop entrances for both bioretention filters, and specified for edge of pavement detail 5 on sheet C-9. 26) Review the modeling of bioretention 1. Both primary and secondary outflow from OS-3 appear to be entering the basin although OS-3 modeling indicates large storm event discharge going to OS-1. Please clarify. Modeling OS-1 as a pond may be the solution. Noted. The HydroCAD model has been revised accordingly to show the correct conveyance of the primary and secondary outflows from OS-3. 27) Review the modeling, details, and plans. The details do not appear to correspond to the model. a. Water rises 6” above the mulch layer. This would enter into the 6” drain depicted in the detail. This drain needs to be modeled if it is to be utilized. Noted. The details for the bioretention filter have been revised accordingly to accurately show how the bioretention filter will outlet. Proposed 6” riser pipes are to be utilized as cleanout/access points only, and are specified to have solid covers. b. Filter 1 depth is not in accordance with the design manual. Noted. The plans have been revised accordingly. c. The design manual suggests wood mulch. Provide information/justification to the gravel mulch. Noted. Sheet C-11 has been revised to specify wood mulch to be used within the bioretention filters. d. There is not a filter 3. Noted. The reference to a bioretention filter-3 has been removed from detail 1 on sheet C- 11. 28) Provide infiltration testing and borings in accordance with Append D of the Design Manual or install a liner within bioretention 2. Noted. The plans have been revised accordingly to specify a liner to be installed on bioretention filter-2 unless the project geotechnical engineer approves permeable fabric based on conducted infiltration tests/borings. 29) Label the rim of bioretention overflow on sheet C-4. Noted. Sheet C-4 has been revised accordingly. If you have any questions or if you need any other additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, NAPIERALA CONSULTING Professional Engineer, P.C. Jim A. Ballantyne Jim A. Ballantyne, E.I.T. Design Engineer Matthew R. Napierala Matthew R. Napierala, P.E. Managing Engineer / President STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN For the: Mirabito Convenience Store 301 Pine Tree Road Tompkins County Route 210) Ithaca, NY 14850 Prepared for: Mirabito Holdings, Inc. 49 Court Street Binghamton, NY 13901 Prepared by: Telephone: (315) 682-5580 Fax: (315) 682-5544 Project No. 20-1890 Revised December 2024 THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Purpose The following Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed to control stormwater runoff and pollutants from a site during and after construction activities. The objective of this SWPPP is to comply with the New York State (NYS) Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity GP-0-20-001) by planning and implementing standard stormwater management practices. B. Project Description The proposed project will redevelop and expand the existing Mirabito gas station/convenience store located at 301 Pine Tree Road on the northeast side of Ellis Hollow Road and Pine Tree Road intersection in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres, including the existing Mirabito store’s 0.67-acre parcel, and approximately 0.82 acres acquired from portions of the parcels to the north an east, following the approval of a proposed lot line adjustment. The proposed redevelopment will include the construction of a new 6,000 square-foot (sf) building that is inclusive of the new Mirabito convenience store and an attached restaurant with a drive-thru. Additionally, the project will also include a new gasoline/diesel refueling island, associated asphalt parking and driveways, concrete sidewalks, a dumpster enclosure, and stormwater mitigation facilities. Access to the site will be provided by two full access driveways on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road. C. Stormwater Practices Stormwater practices are categorized as either temporary construction measures or permanent operation measures. The temporary measures that will be used on this site for erosion and sediment control include (but are not limited to): stabilized construction entrance, silt fencing, and temporary sediment basins. The permanent stormwater practices to be installed are two bioretention filters and an underground detention chamber system. These best management practices will provide water quality, runoff reduction, and storage for quantity control. All practices, both the temporary construction measures and the permanent operation measures, have been designed in accordance with the established standards. D. Water Quality Treatment The water quality volume treatment characteristics are summarized below. The entire water quality descriptions and calculations are further detailed in Section III.E and F. Water Quality Volume Drainage Area Required WQv (ac-ft) Total Provided WQv (ac-ft) DA-1 0.034 0.041 (BF-1) DA-2 0.016 0.038 (BF-2) DA-3 0.002 Page ii E. Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) The NYSDEC regulation requires all construction projects that disturb greater than one acre of land to provide runoff reduction through the implementation of green infrastructure practices. Runoff reduction volume for this project is achieved using the proposed bioretention areas. This volume is summarized below and further detailed in Section III.D, E, and F. Runoff Reduction Volume Drainage Area Required RRv (ac-ft) Total Provided RRv (ac-ft) DA-1 0.007 0.017 DA-2 N/A 0.011 F. Stormwater Quantity The impacts to stormwater runoff quantity (i.e. peak flows) will be mitigated via an underground detention chamber system. The underground detention chamber system will be constructed with sufficient volume to store additional runoff from the site and discharge it in a controlled manner. The chart below summarizes the stormwater discharges from the site and is further detailed in Section III.G and H. G. Winter Stabilization Requirements Construction activities involved with ongoing land disturbance and exposure between November 15th and April 1st must adhere to the standards defined within the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Requirements and standards for winter stabilization are further detailed within Section IV.A. Existing Peak Runoff Rate (cfs) Proposed Peak Runoff Rate (cfs) Rainfall Event EX-DA-1 EX-DA-2 EX-DA-3 PRO-DA-1 PRO-DA-2 PRO-DA-3 1-Year Storm 1.40 2.17 0.35 0.75 1.45 0.29 10-Year Storm 3.19 4.72 0.83 1.48 3.14 0.66 100-Year Storm 6.48 7.38 1.76 3.48 7.08 1.31 1396 White Bridge Road Chittenango, NY 13037 Tel: (315) 391-5110 April 17, 2023 Napierala Consulting 110 Fayette Street Manlius, NY 13104 Attn: Mr. Matthew Napierala, P.E. Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY Dear Mr. Napierala: I have completed my review of traffic operations associated with the proposed Mirabito site modification on the northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Tree Road with Ellis Hollow Road in the Town of Ithaca, NY. This letter summarizes the work completed in this review as well as my findings. Project Understanding The existing Mirabito development is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Pine Tree Road with Ellis Hollow Road in the Town of Ithaca, NY. The site is currently occupied by a Mirabito gas station with 8 regular fueling positions and 1 diesel fueling position. The existing site has a small convenience store (less than 1,000 SF) with limited products. Existing access to the site is provided via one full access driveway to Pine Tree Road located approximately 155 feet to the north of Ellis Hollow Road, one full access driveway to Ellis Hollow Road located approximately 195 feet to the east of Pine Tree Road, and cross access to the East Hill Plaza. There is an existing closed Burger King restaurant with access to the East Hill Plaza eastern driveway, located immediately east of the Mirabito site. The proposed site modification includes a new 4,650 SF convenience store with 8 fueling positions, a 1,800 SF attached Burger King restaurant with drive through operations, and a single bay detached automated car wash. The Pine Tree Road access will be shifted approximately 40 feet to the north of the current location. The Ellis Hollow Road access will be converted to a two-way driveway between Ellis Hollow Road and the East Hill Plaza with one full access driveway for the Mirabito site and one exit driveway from the car wash. A preliminary plan developed by Napierala Consulting, dated March 30th, 2023 has been attached. Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 2 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY Data Collection Site visits were conducted on Thursday, March 16th, 2023 to collect the following: Existing Traffic Volume Counts – Traffic turning movement counts were collected at the following four study area intersections during the weekday morning (7-9am) and evening (4- 6pm) peak travel periods to ensure that actual peak hours of the adjacent streets were captured. o Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road o Pine Tree Road @ Mirabito Access o Ellis Hollow Road @ Mirabito Access o Ellis Hollow Road @ East Hill Plaza East Access In additional to the four intersections, traffic counts entering/exiting the Mirabito site via the East Hill Plaza cross access were also collected. The traffic counts included separate heavy vehicle counts on each approach and pedestrians. All area schools were in session. Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road Gap Data – Gap data was collected to assess the ability for vehicles to turn in and out of the existing site driveways on both Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road. In order for a vehicle to turn right out of the site, or left into the site, the vehicle only requires a gap in the northbound direction on Pine Tree Road, or the westbound direction on Ellis Hollow Road. A vehicle requires a gap in traffic in both directions at the same time to turn left out of the site onto either roadway. These gaps in traffic were observed and timed on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road passing the site during the weekday morning and weekday evening traffic count periods. The gaps were then converted to a number of vehicles that could turn left or right out of the site during each gap and then totaled for the peak hour. For example, one vehicle can turn from the driveway with a 6-9 second gap in traffic, two can turn with a 10-13 second gap, 3 with a 14-17 second gap, 4 with an 18-19 second gap, etc. Traffic Queue Data - Traffic queues in the southbound left and through/right lanes on Pine Tree Road and the westbound left and through/right lanes on Ellis Hollow Road at the Pine Tree Road/Ellis Hollow Road intersection were collected at the beginning of the green phase of the traffic signal throughout the traffic count periods to identify both average and maximum queues as well as any impacts that they may have on the existing full access driveways. Spot Speed Measurements – 50 speed measurements were collected in each direction on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road to identify average and 85th percentile operating speeds in the area passing the site. The data was collected for free flow traffic during off-peak times. The weather was sunny and the roadway was dry. Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY Sight Distance Measurements – Sight lines looking north/south along Pine Tree Road and east/west along Ellis Hollow Road from the existing site driveways were collected for comparison to design standards in order to confirm that adequate sight lines are available for safe ingress and egress from the site. Operational Data - Other data needed to evaluate traffic operations, such as intersection geometry, control, and speeds limits were also collected. Existing Operations Both Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road have one lane in each direction through the study area with auxiliary left turn lanes on the four approaches to the signalized Pine Tree Road / Ellis Hollow Road intersection. The existing westbound left turn lane on Ellis Hollow Road at the signal has approximately 90 feet of storage space before transitioning to a 55 foot eastbound left turn lane for the Mirabito driveway and continuing as an eastbound left turn lane for the East Hill Plaza driveway. The posted speed limit on both Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road is 35 mph. Based on the traffic counts collected, the peak hours were identified as follows: Morning Peak Hour – 8:00 am to 9:00am Evening Peak Hour – 4:30pm to 5:30pm The 2023 existing traffic volumes collected in March are shown in the attached Figure 1 for the morning and evening peak hours. The existing traffic volumes were reviewed and compared to historical traffic volumes on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road to identify any necessary additional adjustments to account for any potential lingering impacts from the Covid pandemic. Based on data from the NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer website, Pine Tree Road has a design hour volume of approximately 865 vehicles and a directional design hour volume of approximately 529 vehicles passing the site. These volumes are consistent with the evening peak hour volumes collected, which had 780 total vehicles and 501 southbound vehicles passing the site during the evening peak hour. Ellis Hollow Road has a design hour volume of 415 vehicles with a directional design hour volume of 290 vehicles, which is also consistent with the evening peak hour volumes collected, which had 397 total vehicles and 245 eastbound vehicles to the east of the East Hill Plaza driveway. Given that the 2023 evening peak hour traffic counts are generally consistent with the 2019 historical data, there were no adjustments made associated with the COVID pandemic. Pine Tree Road is classified as a minor urban arterial roadway in the area. The roadway carries approximately 530 vehicles northbound / 139 vehicles southbound passing the site during the morning peak hour and 265 vehicles northbound / 480 vehicles southbound passing the site during the evening Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY peak hour. Ellis Hollow Road is classified as an urban major collector roadway in the area. The roadway carries approximately 101 vehicles eastbound/202 vehicles westbound passing the site during the morning peak hour, and 178 vehicles eastbound/189 vehicles westbound passing the site during the evening peak hour. The traffic count data has been attached. Based on the gap data collected, there are sufficient gaps in traffic to accommodate approximately 400 vehicles or more turning right onto Pine Tree Road and approximately 500 vehicles or more turning right onto Ellis Hollow Road from the site driveways during each peak hour. These gaps would also be available for vehicles turning left into the site from either roadway. There were sufficient gaps observed to accommodate over 200 vehicles turning left out of the site onto Pine Tree Road and over 400 vehicles turning left out onto Ellis Hollow Road during the peak hours. There are no concerns with available gaps in traffic to accommodate the existing access locations. The gap data is attached. The queue data collected indicates that the traffic queues southbound on Pine Tree Road at the Ellis Hollow Road intersection are minor during both peak hours. The average traffic queues observed were less than 1 vehicle in the southbound left lane during both peak hours, 1.4 vehicles in the southbound through/right lane during the morning peak hour, and 2.5 vehicles in the southbound through/right lane during the evening peak hour. The maximum queues observed were 3 vehicles in the southbound left turn lane during both peak hours, 5 vehicles in the southbound through/right lane during the morning peak hour and 6 vehicles in the southbound through/right lane during the evening peak hour. The maximum traffic queues extend just to the site driveway in the through lane during both peak hours and quickly clear as the signal operates on a short 60-70 second cycle length. The queue data collected indicates that the traffic queues westbound on Ellis Hollow Road at the Pine Tree Road intersection are also minor during both peak hours. The average traffic queues observed were less than 1 vehicle in the westbound left lane during both peak hours, 0.7 vehicles in the westbound through/right lane during the morning peak hour, and 1.2 vehicles in the westbound through/right lane during the evening peak hour. The maximum queues observed were 2 vehicles in the westbound left turn lane during both peak hours, 4 vehicles in the westbound through/right lane during the morning peak hour and 5 vehicles in the westbound through/right lane during the evening peak hour. The maximum traffic queues did not extend to the site driveway during either peak hour. The posted speed limit passing the site is 35 mph on both Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road. The speed data collected on Pine Tree Road indicates that the average speeds passing the site are 34 mph northbound and 29 mph southbound. The 85th percentile speeds based on the data collected are 40 mph northbound and 31.5 mph southbound on Pine Tree Road. The speed data collected on Ellis Hollow Road indicates that the average speeds passing the site are 38 mph eastbound and 37 mph westbound. The 85th percentile speeds based on the data collected are 40 mph eastbound and 40 mph westbound on Ellis Hollow Road. The speed data has been attached. Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY The following table provides a summary of the recommended sight distances along Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road from the AASHTO A Policy on Design of Highways and Streets as well as the available sight distances at the site driveways based on field measurements. The speed limit in the area is 35 mph on both roadways, however the speed data collected indicates that the operating speed is closer to 40 mph in both directions on both roadways. Therefore 40 mph was used for the sight distance review. The recommended sight distances for vehicles turning left out of both driveways were adjusted to account for the additional left turn lane to be crossed when turning left out onto Pine Tree Road or Ellis Hollow Road. Sight Distance Summary Location Operating Speed Direction AASHTO Recommended Sight Distance Available Sight Distance Site Driveway @ Pine Tree Road – Turning Left 40 mph Looking Left Looking Right 475 feet 475 feet 500 feet 900+ feet Site Driveway @ Pine Tree Road – Turning Right 40 mph Looking Left 385 feet 500 feet Site Driveway @ Ellis Hollow Road – Turning Left 40 mph Looking Left Looking Right 475 feet 475 feet 1,000+ feet 500 feet Site Driveway @ Ellis Hollow Road – Turning Right 40 mph Looking Left 385 feet 1,000+ feet There are more than adequate sight distances available in both directions along Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road from the existing driveway locations. There are no concerns with sight distances and safety for ingress and egress from the proposed site driveways. There are no concerns with existing traffic operations on Pine Tree Road or Ellis Hollow Road in the vicinity of the project site as there are ample gaps in traffic and clear sight lines in both directions. Existing southbound traffic queues on Pine Tree Road and westbound traffic queues on Ellis Hollow Road do not have any significant impact the site access locations. The adjacent traffic signal at the Pine Tree Road / Ellis Hollow road intersection operates on a short cycle length which minimizes both queues and delays in the study area. These findings are consistent with observations made during the data collection effort. Trip Generation Estimate The existing Mirabito development includes a gas station with 8 fueling positions. Based on the 2023 traffic counts collected, the existing development generates the following traffic volumes during each peak hour: Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY Morning Peak Hour – 37 trips entering / 36 trips exiting – 73 trips total Evening Peak Hour –55 trips entering / 55 trips exiting – 110 trips total Trips generated by the existing development were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition, which is the industry accepted standard for estimating traffic generated. Land Use 944 – Gas Station/Service Station was used for the existing development estimate. This land use specifically notes that there is minimal convenience store type operations associated with the gas station. The ITE estimate for the existing development is consistent with the observed operations. The estimate projects that the existing site would generate 41 vehicles entering and exiting during the morning peak hour, and 56 vehicles entering and exiting during the evening peak hour. The proposed Mirabito site modification includes a new 4,650 SF convenience store with 8 fueling positions, a 1,800 SF attached Burger King restaurant with drive through operations, and a single bay detached automated car wash. Trips generated by the proposed development were also estimated using the ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition. Land Use 945 - Convenience Store / Gas Station – GFA (2-4K) was used for the proposed gas station/convenience store portion of the development. While this land use includes rates for different ranges of convenience store size (2-4K SF, 4-5.5K SF, etc), the 2-4K SF rates were used since the average number of fuel positions matches the proposed site at 8. The average number of fuel positions for the larger 4-5.5K square foot convenience store sites was 14. Land Use 934 – Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through Window was used for the Burger King, and Land Use 948 – Automated Car Wash was used for the car wash. A portion of the traffic generation within the Mirabito development will be internal trips that do not generate new vehicles on the adjacent roadways. For example, people will stop at the Burger King or use the car wash after getting gas or stopping at the convenience store. Typically, the majority of the car washes are purchased at the gas pumps, making the car washes an internal trip without additional trips on the adjacent streets. A 20% multi-use trip reduction was applied to the overall trip generation estimate to account for these internal capture trips. A significant portion of the additional external trips generated by the development will be drawn from traffic already passing the site on Pine Tree Road or Ellis Hollow Road and are referred to as pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are vehicles that are already traveling through the study area but will now stop at the development on their way to anther destination, such as stopping on their way to or from work. Based on data from the ITE Trip Generation, the average pass-by trip percentage for Land Use 945 is 62% during the morning peak hour and 56% during the evening peak hour. The average pass-by rate for Land Use 934 is 49% during the morning peak hour and 50% during the evening peak hour. A 50% pass-by trip rate was applied to the overall estimate, and was applied after the multi-use credit to avoid compounding credits. Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY The following table summarizes the trip generation estimate for the proposed Mirabito site modification on the northeast corner of the Pine Tree Road/Ellis Hollow Road intersection in the Town of Ithaca. Trip Generation Summary Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Mirabito – 4,650 SF / 8 Fueling Positions 64 64 74 74 Burger King – 1,800 SF 41 39 30 29 Car Wash – Single Bay 20 20 39 39 Total Individual Trips Generated 125 123 143 142 Multi-Use Trip Credit – 20% -25 -25 -29 -28 Total External Trips Generated 100 99 114 114 Existing Trips Generated -37 -36 -55 -59 Total Additional Trips Generated 63 63 59 55 Pass-by Trips – 50% -31 31 -28 -28 Total New Trips Generated 32 32 31 27 The detailed trip generation calculations have been attached. Overall, the Mirabito development is expected to generate approximately 63 additional trips entering and exiting during the morning peak hour and 59 additional trips entering/55 additional trips exiting during the evening peak hour. Approximately half of these trips will be drawn from traffic already passing the site on Pine Tree Road or Ellis Hollow Road, therefore the site is only expected to generate 27-32 new trips entering and exiting the overall study area during the peak hours. Trip Distribution Prior to adding the additional site generated trips to the study area, the existing traffic volumes were redistributed to account for the proposed connection between Ellis Hollow Road and the East Hill Plaza. Typically most traffic will use the closest access to their origin/destination to access a development. Therefore, 80% of the traffic turning left into and right out of the East Hill Plaza driveway on Ellis Hollow Road was redistributed to the proposed western connection on the Mirabito site. Similarly, 20% of the traffic turning right into/left out of the East Hill Plaza driveway was redistributed to the proposed western access connection. The redistributed existing traffic volumes with the proposed access modifications are shown in Figure 2. Based on existing traffic patterns and population centers in the area, 40% of the new trips generated are expected to travel to/from the north on Pine Tree Road, 25% is expected to travel to/from the south on Pine Tree Road, 20% is expected to travel to/from the east on Ellis Hollow Road, 10% is expected to Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY travel to/from the west on Ellis Hollow Road, and 5% is expected to be drawn from the East Hill Plaza. Separate pass-by trip distributions were developed for each peak hour based on specific traffic patterns passing the site on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road. The anticipated arrival/departure distribution for the morning and evening peak hours are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The trips generated during each peak hour are shown in Figures 5 and 6, and the resultant full build traffic volumes expected when the development is complete are shown in Figure 7. Build Operations Based on the projected turning movements on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road at the site driveways, there are more than sufficient gaps available to accommodate the proposed development traffic. As noted previously, existing southbound traffic queues on Pine Tree Road at the traffic signal have minimal existing impacts on the site driveway operations. The proposed development is only expected to increase the southbound through volume by 7-8 vehicles during the peak hours which will have no notable impact on existing queue measurements. On Ellis Hollow Road, the westbound traffic queues at the traffic signal had no impact on the site access. The proposed development will only add approximately 3 westbound through vehicles per hour during the peak hours, which will also have no notable impacts on existing traffic queues. There are 25-35 vehicles projected to be turning left into the Ellis Hollow Road access during each peak hour, which equates to 1-2 vehicles per cycle of the adjacent traffic signal. The existing 55 foot eastbound left turn lane on Ellis Hollow Road is sufficient to accommodate this projected traffic volume turning on the site. There are no concerns noted with potential traffic queuing impacts on the adjacent streets. The site layout provides a 28 foot drive aisle around the fuel canopy to provide access between the access driveways and the parking stalls. There is adequate stacking space for 10 vehicles in the Burger King drive through and up to 4 cars in the car wash lane without impacting the flow of traffic between the two site access driveways. Conclusions Half of additional traffic generated by the proposed Mirabito site modification will be drawn from existing traffic on Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road, resulting in only 25-35 new vehicles entering/exiting the area when the development is completed. This minor increase in traffic will generally not be noticeable to existing motorists in the area. There are ample gaps in traffic to accommodate traffic turning in and out of the site and adequate sight lines to provide safe access. Existing traffic queues in the area have minimal impacts on the site driveways and are not expected to significantly change with the proposed site modification. There are no noted concerns with on-site circulation patterns. There are no mitigation measures recommended. Mr. Napierala April 17, 2023 Page 9 of 9 Re: Traffic Operations Review – Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road – Town of Ithaca, NY If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, Gordon T. Stansbury, P.E., P.T.O.E. GTS Consulting Attachments – Site Plan Traffic Volume Figures 1-7 Gap Calculations Spot Speed Data Trip Generation Estimate Count Data nn n n n n n n n n n EV EV EV EV PROJECT NO.DATESCALESHEETMATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:COPYRIGHT C 2023NO.REVISION/ISSUESHEET TITLE:DATEPREPARED FOR: O N EW GTS Consulting Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road,Town of Ithaca,NY Not to Scale 2023 Existing Traffic Volumes - Collected March 16th, 2023 Morning (Evening) Peak Hour Figure 1 9 (6) 202 (189)6(8)4(20) 0 (5) 101 (178) 104 (56)76 (86) 26(67) 24(34) 398(181)8( 7)27( 83)93(403)23( 9)38 ( 42)50 (66)7 ( 6)East Hill Plaza 37 ( 29)198 (123) 9(85)13( 72)25( 26)82(160) 1 3 (1 O N EW GTS Consulting Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road,Town of Ithaca,NY Not to Scale 2023 Existing Traffic Volumes - Redistributed With Modified Access Morning (Evening) Peak Hour Figure 2 16(12) 192 (131)8(25) 14(78) 20(25) 81(158) 104 (56)76 (86) 26(67) 24(34) 398(181)8( 7)27( 83)93(403)23( 9)38 ( 42)50 (66)7 ( 6)East Hill Plaza 30 ( 23)205 (129) 7(68)3( 14)5 ( 6)84(177)1 3 ( 1 4 ) 4 (1 5 )16(21)139(480)10(14)530(265)Mirabito Site Pine Tree Road Pine Tree Road EllisHollowRoadEllisHollowRoadSite Access Eastern Plaza Access12(75)2(9)27(26)9(11)9 ( O N EW GTS Consulting Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road,Town of Ithaca,NY Not to Scale Arrival / Departure Trip Distribution - Morning Peak Hour New (Pass-by) Trip Distribution Figure 3 20%(+19%)(- 19%)20%(+11%) 10%(+ 19%) 10%(+ 11%)(-11%)10% 25% 25% 10%East Hill Plaza 20%20%4 0 %(+ 5 5 %) 2 5 %(+1 5 %)40%(+15%)(- 15%)25%(+ 55%)(-55%)MirabitoSite Pine Tree O N EW GTS Consulting Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road,Town of Ithaca,NY Not to Scale Arrival / Departure Trip Distribution - Evening Peak Hour New (Pass-by) Trip Distribution Figure 4 20%(+17%)(- 17%)20%(+16%) 10%(+ 17%) 10%(+ 16%)(-16%)10% 25% 25% 10%East Hill Plaza 20%20%4 0 %(+ 2 4 %) 2 5 %(+4 3 %)40%(+43%)(- 43%)25%(+ 24%)(-24%)MirabitoSite Pine Tree O N EW GTS Consulting Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road,Town of Ithaca,NY Not to Scale Additinol Trips Generated - Morning Peak Hour New (Pass-by) Trips Figure 5 6 (+6)(- 6)6(+3) 3(+ 6) 3 (+ 3)3)3 883 East Hill Plaza 6 6 1 3 (+ 1 7 ) 8 (+5 )13(+ 5)(-5)8(+ 17)(-17) Mirabito SitePineTree Road Pine O N EW GTS Consulting Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road,Town of Ithaca,NY Not to Scale Additional Trips Generated - Evening Peak Hour New (Pass-by) Trips Figure 6 6 (+5)(- 5)5(+4) 3(+ 5) 3 (+ 4)4)3 873 East Hill Plaza 6 5 1 1 (+ 7 )7 (+ 1 2 )12(+ 12)(-12)8(+ 7)(-7) Mirabito SitePineTree Road Pine O N EW GTS Consulting Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road,Town of Ithaca,NY Not to Scale 2023 Build Traffic Volumes Morning (Evening) Peak Hour Figure 7 28(23) 186 (126)17(34) 23(86) 26(32) 78(154) 104 (56)79 (89) 26(67) 24(34) 406(189)8( 7)27( 83)101(410)23( 9)38 ( 42)53 (69)7 ( 6)East Hill Plaza 30 (23) 211 (135)7( 68)3(14) 5 (6) 90(182)43 (3 2 )1 Intersection Gap Study Project:Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road - Town of Ithaca, NY Date:3/16/2023 Intersection:Site Access @ Pine Tree Road Movement:Right Turns Exiting / Left Turns Entering 6-9 sec 10-13 sec 14-17 sec 18-19 sec 20-23 sec 24-25 sec 26-29 sec >29 sec Interval Hour Time Interval x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 Total Total Morning Peak Hour 8:00-8:15am # of Gaps 17 7 9 4 1 1 1 1 of Vehicles 17 14 27 16 5 6 7 8 100 8:15-8:30am # of Gaps 19 9 11 2 1 1 1 1 of Vehicles 19 18 33 8 5 6 7 8 104 8:30-8:45am # of Gaps 16 15 6 0 2 1 1 1 of Vehicles 16 30 18 0 10 6 7 8 95 8:45-9:00am # of Gaps 19 8 8 1 2 0 2 1 of Vehicles 19 16 24 4 10 0 14 8 95 394 Evening Peak Hour 4:30-4:45pm # of Gaps 11 13 8 0 3 1 5 3 of Vehicles 11 26 24 0 15 6 35 24 141 4:45-5:00pm # of Gaps 11 15 4 3 4 1 0 6 of Vehicles 11 30 12 12 20 6 0 48 139 5:00-5:15pm # of Gaps 16 12 9 3 5 0 4 1 of Vehicles 16 24 27 12 25 0 28 8 140 5:15-5:30pm # of Gaps 15 9 7 1 8 0 2 4 of Vehicles 15 18 21 4 40 0 14 32 144 564 Intersection Gap Study Project:Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road - Town of Ithaca, NY Date:3/16/2023 Intersection:Site Access @ Pine Tree Road Movement:Left Turns Exiting 6-9 sec 10-13 sec 14-17 sec 18-19 sec 20-23 sec 24-25 sec 26-29 sec >29 sec Interval Hour Time Interval x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 Total Total Morning Peak Hour 8:00-8:15am # of Gaps 25 4 6 2 2 0 1 0 of Vehicles 25 8 18 8 10 0 7 0 76 8:15-8:30am # of Gaps 15 9 8 2 2 0 1 0 of Vehicles 15 18 24 8 10 0 7 0 82 8:30-8:45am # of Gaps 24 10 2 0 3 0 1 0 of Vehicles 24 20 6 0 15 0 7 0 72 8:45-9:00am # of Gaps 14 8 7 2 2 0 1 0 of Vehicles 14 16 21 8 10 0 7 0 76 306 Evening Peak Hour 4:30-4:45pm # of Gaps 16 8 2 0 3 1 0 0 of Vehicles 16 16 6 0 15 6 0 0 59 4:45-5:00pm # of Gaps 20 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 of Vehicles 20 14 21 8 0 0 0 0 63 5:00-5:15pm # of Gaps 10 4 6 0 0 1 1 0 of Vehicles 10 8 18 0 0 6 7 0 49 5:15-5:30pm # of Gaps 20 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 of Vehicles 20 6 9 0 0 6 7 0 48 219 Intersection Gap Study Project:Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road - Town of Ithaca, NY Date:3/16/2023 Intersection:Site Access @ Ellis Hollow Road Movement:Right Turns Exiting / Left Turns Entering 6-9 sec 10-13 sec 14-17 sec 18-19 sec 20-23 sec 24-25 sec 26-29 sec >29 sec Interval Hour Time Interval x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 Total Total Morning Peak Hour 8:00-8:15am # of Gaps 3 2 0 2 0 0 3 10 of Vehicles 3 4 0 8 0 0 21 80 116 8:15-8:30am # of Gaps 8 10 5 0 1 1 2 7 of Vehicles 8 20 15 0 5 6 14 56 124 8:30-8:45am # of Gaps 8 4 2 1 2 3 1 8 of Vehicles 8 8 6 4 10 18 7 64 125 8:45-9:00am # of Gaps 3 5 2 2 3 0 0 10 of Vehicles 3 10 6 8 15 0 0 80 122 487 Evening Peak Hour 4:30-4:45pm # of Gaps 9 3 3 0 3 2 2 8 of Vehicles 9 6 9 0 15 12 14 64 129 4:45-5:00pm # of Gaps 7 6 5 3 3 0 4 5 of Vehicles 7 12 15 12 15 0 28 40 129 5:00-5:15pm # of Gaps 11 5 5 6 1 1 2 7 of Vehicles 11 10 15 24 5 6 14 56 141 5:15-5:30pm # of Gaps 8 2 2 1 4 0 3 8 of Vehicles 8 4 6 4 20 0 21 64 127 526 Intersection Gap Study Project:Proposed Mirabito Site Modification - Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road - Town of Ithaca, NY Date:3/16/2023 Intersection:Site Access @ Ellis Hollow Road Movement:Left Turns Exiting 6-9 sec 10-13 sec 14-17 sec 18-19 sec 20-23 sec 24-25 sec 26-29 sec >29 sec Interval Hour Time Interval x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 Total Total Morning Peak Hour 8:00-8:15am # of Gaps 6 4 1 4 2 1 3 6 of Vehicles 6 8 3 16 10 6 21 48 118 8:15-8:30am # of Gaps 13 10 8 1 2 0 3 4 of Vehicles 13 20 24 4 10 0 21 32 124 8:30-8:45am # of Gaps 13 7 4 1 1 3 1 3 of Vehicles 13 14 12 4 5 18 7 24 97 8:45-9:00am # of Gaps 8 4 6 1 2 2 1 5 of Vehicles 8 8 18 4 10 12 7 40 107 446 Evening Peak Hour 4:30-4:45pm # of Gaps 14 14 5 3 6 0 0 1 of Vehicles 14 28 15 12 30 0 0 8 107 4:45-5:00pm # of Gaps 14 10 10 2 3 2 1 1 of Vehicles 14 20 30 8 15 12 7 8 114 5:00-5:15pm # of Gaps 19 11 4 6 1 1 3 1 of Vehicles 19 22 12 24 5 6 21 8 117 5:15-5:30pm # of Gaps 13 8 7 1 3 1 4 2 of Vehicles 13 16 21 4 15 6 28 16 119 457 DistanceT ravelled(ft)=110 50 S peedM easurementsperDirection S peedLimit 35moh N B T ime Calculated N B T ime Calculated S B T ime Calculated S B T ime Calculated S econds S peed S econds S peed S econds S peed S econds S peed 2.69 28 2.31 32 3.16 24 2.63 29 2.66 28 2.31 32 2.93 26 2.62 29 2.63 29 2.31 32 2.91 26 2.61 29 2.58 29 2.29 33 2.86 26 2.61 29 2.57 29 2.25 33 2.86 26 2.6 29 2.53 30 2.22 34 2.84 26 2.58 29 2.51 30 2.19 34 2.84 26 2.58 29 2.50 30 2.19 34 2.84 26 2.57 29 2.5 30 2.11 36 2.82 27 2.56 29 2.49 30 2.1 36 2.81 27 2.55 29 2.48 30 2.1 36 2.76 27 2.54 30 2.48 30 2.04 37 2.75 27 2.53 30 2.47 30 2 38 2.75 27 2.53 30 2.47 30 1.97 38 2.75 27 2.53 30 2.44 31 1.96 38 2.74 27 2.48 30 2.44 31 1.94 39 2.73 27 2.46 30 2.41 31 1.88 40 2.73 27 2.41 31 2.4 31 1.87 40 2.73 27 2.37 32 2.38 32 1.87 40 2.73 27 2.36 32 2.38 32 1.85 41 2.69 28 2.32 32 2.37 32 1.78 42 2.69 28 2.28 33 2.37 32 1.78 42 2.69 28 2.27 33 2.34 32 1.67 45 2.68 28 2.25 33 2.31 32 1.67 45 2.67 28 2.23 34 2.31 32 1.62 46 2.66 28 2.21 34 N orthbound S outhbound AverageS peed=34 mph AverageS peed=29 mph 85thP ercentileS peed=40 mph 85thP ercentileS peed=31.5 mph P roposedM irabitoS iteM odification-P ineT reeR oad@ EllisHollow R oad-T ownofIthaca,N Y S peedS tudyM easurements-P ineT reeR oadP assingS ite 3/16/2023 DistanceT ravelled(ft)=110 50 S peedM easurementsperDirection S peedLimit 35moh EB T ime Calculated EB T ime Calculated W B T ime Calculated W B T ime Calculated S econds S peed S econds S peed S econds S peed S econds S peed 2.31 32 2 38 2.62 29 2.02 37 2.28 33 2.00 38 2.5 30 2.01 37 2.25 33 2 38 2.47 30 2.01 37 2.22 34 1.98 38 2.43 31 2.00 38 2.22 34 1.98 38 2.37 32 2 38 2.14 35 1.97 38 2.36 32 1.97 38 2.14 35 1.96 38 2.26 33 1.97 38 2.13 35 1.96 38 2.25 33 1.97 38 2.12 35 1.96 38 2.21 34 1.94 39 2.11 36 1.94 39 2.19 34 1.94 39 2.09 36 1.93 39 2.19 34 1.94 39 2.09 36 1.92 39 2.19 34 1.93 39 2.09 36 1.89 40 2.14 35 1.93 39 2.09 36 1.87 40 2.13 35 1.92 39 2.07 36 1.87 40 2.13 35 1.91 39 2.06 36 1.86 40 2.12 35 1.9 39 2.06 36 1.86 40 2.12 35 1.88 40 2.06 36 1.86 40 2.07 36 1.87 40 2.05 37 1.84 41 2.06 36 1.87 40 2.04 37 1.79 42 2.06 36 1.86 40 2.04 37 1.79 42 2.05 37 1.83 41 2.03 37 1.78 42 2.03 37 1.81 41 2.02 37 1.73 43 2.03 37 1.81 41 2.02 37 1.69 44 2.03 37 1.81 41 2.01 37 1.67 45 2.03 37 1.76 43 Eastbound W estbound AverageS peed=38 mph AverageS peed=37 mph 85thP ercentileS peed=40 mph 85thP ercentileS peed=40 mph P roposedM irabitoS iteM odification-P ineT reeR oad@ EllisHollow R oad-T ownofIthaca,N Y S peedS tudyM easurements-EllisHollow R oadP assingS ite 3/16/2023 8 Fueling Position Gas Station (No Convenience Store) Proposed Development 4,650 SF Convenience Store with 8 Fueling Positions & Car Wash 1,800 SF - Burger King With Drive Through Existing Trips Generated (3/16/2023) Morning Peak Hour 37 Entered 36 Exited 73 Total Trips Evening Peak Hour 55 Entered 59 Exited 114 Total Trips ITE Trip Generation - 11th Edition Land Use 944 - Gas Station/Service Station AM Peak Hour 10.28 Trips/Fuel Position 50%Enter 50%Exit PM Peak Hour 13.91 Trips/Fuel Position 50%Enter 50%Exit Land Use 945 - Convenience Store / Gas Station - GFA (2-4K)* AM Peak Hour 16.06 Trips/Fuel Position 50%Enter 50%Exit PM Peak Hour 18.42 Trips/Fuel Position 50%Enter 50%Exit Average Number of Fueling Positions = 8 for GFA(2-4K), Average Number =14 for GFA (4-5.5K), therefore use (2-4K) rates Land Use 948 - Automated Car Wash AM Peak Hour*38.75 Trips/Fuel Position 50%Enter 50%Exit PM Peak Hour 77.50 Trips/Tunnel 50%Enter 50%Exit No Data Available for Morning Peak Hour - Assume 50% of Evening Peak Hour Rate Land Use 934 - Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window Morning Peak Hour 44.61 Trips/1,000 SF 51%Enter 49%Exit Evening Peak Hour 33.03 Trips/1,000 SF 52%Enter 48%Exit Multi-Use Credit - Assume 20% Average Pass-by Percentages Land Use 945 - Convenience Store / Gas Station - AM - 62%, PM - 56% Fast Food Restaurant - AM - 49%, PM - 50% Assume 50% Pass-by Rate for Entire Development - Credit Taken After Multi-Use Credit to Avoid Compounding Credits Development Size Total Trips Entering Exiting Total Trips Entering Exiting Mirabito - No Convenience 8 Fueling Positions 82 41 41 112 56 56 73 37 36 114 55 59 Development Size Total Trips Entering Exiting Total Trips Entering Exiting Mirabito w/ Convenience 4,650 SF / 8 Fuel Pos.128 64 64 148 74 74 Burger King 1,800 SF 80 41 39 59 30 29 Car Wash 1 Tunnel 40 20 20 78 39 39 249 125 123 285 143 142 50 -25 -25 -57 -29 -28 199 100 99 228 114 114 73 -37 -36 -114 -55 -59 126 63 63 114 59 55 62 -31 -31 -56 -28 -28 64 32 32 58 31 27 Trip Generation Estimate - Existing Mirabito Gas Station Development Trip Generation Estimate - Proposed Mirabito Site Modification with Convenience Store, Burger King & Car Wash Total Individual Trips Generated Multi-Use Trip Credit - 20% Total External Trips Generated Existing Trips Generated Morning Peak Hour Total Additional Trips Generated Pass-by Trips - 50% Proposed Mirabito Site Modification Pine Tree Road @ Ellis Hollow Road - Town of Ithaca, NY Trip Generation Estimate Evening Peak Hour Actual Trips Generated - 3/16/23 Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Existing Development Total New Trips Generated File Name : Pine Tree @ Ellis Hollow Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars & HV Pine Tree Road Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 5 3 2 6 6 2 0 6 63 2 0 0 7 4 0 109 07:15 AM 4 16 6 2 10 12 3 1 3 62 2 2 1 3 2 0 129 07:30 AM 4 23 2 2 28 13 1 2 0 104 1 1 0 13 8 1 203 07:45 AM 8 19 1 1 27 16 5 1 1 120 5 3 0 12 7 0 226 Total 19 63 12 7 71 47 11 4 10 349 10 6 1 35 21 1 667 08:00 AM 7 22 5 5 21 7 6 0 6 92 2 4 1 8 10 2 198 08:15 AM 4 30 7 1 26 21 9 5 4 92 0 1 1 9 11 1 222 08:30 AM 10 18 3 2 27 24 4 2 7 121 0 3 3 18 6 0 248 08:45 AM 2 23 10 2 30 24 7 0 5 93 6 2 2 12 11 1 230 Total 23 93 25 10 104 76 26 7 22 398 8 10 7 47 38 4 898 04:00 PM 0 84 24 2 13 17 12 2 7 31 2 0 1 17 7 0 219 04:15 PM 11 73 18 3 14 19 12 1 5 23 1 3 2 20 12 0 217 04:30 PM 2 86 18 0 14 24 14 0 5 44 1 0 1 13 12 0 234 04:45 PM 2 78 27 0 11 23 9 0 10 41 1 5 0 14 14 1 236 Total 15 321 87 5 52 83 47 3 27 139 5 8 4 64 45 1 906 05:00 PM 4 98 19 1 18 16 20 0 10 40 0 0 2 25 8 0 261 05:15 PM 1 101 19 0 7 16 18 0 9 56 5 0 3 14 8 0 257 05:30 PM 3 100 15 0 7 11 9 0 5 47 4 0 2 20 6 0 229 05:45 PM 5 76 9 0 5 11 8 0 5 33 4 0 3 24 7 0 190 Total 13 375 62 1 37 54 55 0 29 176 13 0 10 83 29 0 937 Grand Total 70 852 186 23 264 260 139 14 88 1062 36 24 22 229 133 6 3408 Apprch %6.2 75.3 16.4 2 39 38.4 20.5 2.1 7.3 87.8 3 2 5.6 58.7 34.1 1.5 Total %2.1 25 5.5 0.7 7.7 7.6 4.1 0.4 2.6 31.2 1.1 0.7 0.6 6.7 3.9 0.2 File Name : Pine Tree @ Ellis Hollow Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 2 Pine Tree Road Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 7 22 5 5 39 21 7 6 0 34 6 92 2 4 104 1 8 10 2 21 198 08:15 AM 4 30 7 1 42 26 21 9 5 61 4 92 0 1 97 1 9 11 1 22 222 08:30 AM 10 18 3 2 33 27 24 4 2 57 7 121 0 3 131 3 18 6 0 27 248 08:45 AM 2 23 10 2 37 30 24 7 0 61 5 93 6 2 106 2 12 11 1 26 230 Total Volume 23 93 25 10 151 104 76 26 7 213 22 398 8 10 438 7 47 38 4 96 898 App. Total 15.2 61.6 16.6 6.6 48.8 35.7 12.2 3.3 5 90.9 1.8 2.3 7.3 49 39.6 4.2 PHF .575 .775 .625 .500 .899 .867 .792 .722 .350 .873 .786 .822 .333 .625 .836 .583 .653 .864 .500 .889 .905 Pine Tree Road EllisHollowRoadEllisHollowRoadPine Tree Road Right 23 Thru 93 Left 25 HV 10 InOut Total 540 151 691 Right104Thru76Left26HV7OutTotalIn94213307Left 8 Thru 398 Right 22 HV 10 Out TotalIn 126 438564Left38Thru47Right7HV4TotalOutIn10796203Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Cars & HV Peak Hour Data North File Name : Pine Tree @ Ellis Hollow Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 3 Pine Tree Road Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 2 86 18 0 106 14 24 14 0 52 5 44 1 0 50 1 13 12 0 26 234 04:45 PM 2 78 27 0 107 11 23 9 0 43 10 41 1 5 57 0 14 14 1 29 236 05:00 PM 4 98 19 1 122 18 16 20 0 54 10 40 0 0 50 2 25 8 0 35 261 05:15 PM 1 101 19 0 121 7 16 18 0 41 9 56 5 0 70 3 14 8 0 25 257 Total Volume 9 363 83 1 456 50 79 61 0 190 34 181 7 5 227 6 66 42 1 115 988 App. Total 2 79.6 18.2 0.2 26.3 41.6 32.1 0 15 79.7 3.1 2.2 5.2 57.4 36.5 0.9 PHF .563 .899 .769 .250 .934 .694 .823 .763 .000 .880 .850 .808 .350 .250 .811 .500 .660 .750 .250 .821 .946 Pine Tree Road EllisHollowRoadEllisHollowRoadPine Tree Road Right 9 Thru 363 Left 83 HV 1 InOut Total 273 456 729 Right50Thru79Left61HV0OutTotalIn183190373Left 7 Thru 181 Right 34 HV 5 Out TotalIn 430 227657Left42Thru66Right6HV1TotalOutIn95115210Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Cars & HV Peak Hour Data North File Name : Pine Tree @ Ellis Hollow Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Peds Pine Tree Road Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 9 Apprch %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 Total %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55.6 0 0 0 11.1 0 0 0 33.3 File Name : Pine Tree @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars & HV Pine Tree Road Southbound Site Access Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 11 0 2 6 0 3 3 3 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 07:15 AM 0 23 3 2 2 0 1 0 0 75 0 2 0 0 0 0 108 07:30 AM 0 30 4 2 2 0 2 0 2 127 0 1 0 0 0 0 170 07:45 AM 0 29 3 1 5 0 1 0 4 153 0 3 0 0 0 0 199 Total 0 93 10 7 15 0 7 3 9 428 0 6 0 0 0 0 578 08:00 AM 0 38 4 5 3 0 2 0 2 141 0 4 0 0 0 0 199 08:15 AM 0 33 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 128 0 1 0 0 0 0 169 08:30 AM 0 40 4 2 5 0 1 0 3 153 0 3 0 0 0 0 211 08:45 AM 0 36 7 2 3 0 1 0 2 129 0 2 0 0 0 0 182 Total 0 147 16 10 13 0 4 0 10 551 0 10 0 0 0 0 761 04:00 PM 0 119 10 2 3 0 3 0 2 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 04:15 PM 0 115 5 3 2 0 1 0 3 48 3 0 0 0 0 0 180 04:30 PM 0 126 5 0 5 0 3 0 3 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 213 04:45 PM 0 110 4 0 4 0 5 0 2 66 5 0 0 0 0 0 196 Total 0 470 24 5 14 0 12 0 10 242 8 0 0 0 0 0 785 05:00 PM 0 146 10 1 1 0 2 0 4 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 05:15 PM 0 143 2 0 4 0 5 0 5 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 221 05:30 PM 0 126 5 0 4 0 3 0 3 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 05:45 PM 0 102 2 0 1 0 4 0 2 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 Total 0 517 19 1 10 0 14 0 14 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 816 Grand Total 0 1227 69 23 52 0 37 3 43 1462 8 16 0 0 0 0 2940 Apprch %0 93 5.2 1.7 56.5 0 40.2 3.3 2.8 95.6 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 Total %0 41.7 2.3 0.8 1.8 0 1.3 0.1 1.5 49.7 0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 File Name : Pine Tree @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 2 Pine Tree Road Southbound Site Access Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 08:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0 38 4 5 47 3 0 2 0 5 2 141 0 4 147 0 0 0 0 0 199 08:15 AM 0 33 1 1 35 2 0 0 0 2 3 128 0 1 132 0 0 0 0 0 169 08:30 AM 0 40 4 2 46 5 0 1 0 6 3 153 0 3 159 0 0 0 0 0 211 08:45 AM 0 36 7 2 45 3 0 1 0 4 2 129 0 2 133 0 0 0 0 0 182 Total Volume 0 147 16 10 173 13 0 4 0 17 10 551 0 10 571 0 0 0 0 0 761 App. Total 0 85 9.2 5.8 76.5 0 23.5 0 1.8 96.5 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .919 .571 .500 .920 .650 .000 .500 .000 .708 .833 .900 .000 .625 .898 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .902 Pine Tree Road SiteAccessPine Tree Road Right 0 Thru 147 Left 16 HV 10 InOut Total 564 173 737 Right13Thru0Left4HV0OutTotalIn261743Left 0 Thru 551 Right 10 HV 10 Out TotalIn 151 571722Left0Thru0Right0HV0TotalOutIn000Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Cars & HV Peak Hour Data North File Name : Pine Tree @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 3 Pine Tree Road Southbound Site Access Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 126 5 0 131 5 0 3 0 8 3 71 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 213 04:45 PM 0 110 4 0 114 4 0 5 0 9 2 66 5 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 196 05:00 PM 0 146 10 1 157 1 0 2 0 3 4 67 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 231 05:15 PM 0 143 2 0 145 4 0 5 0 9 5 62 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 221 Total Volume 0 525 21 1 547 14 0 15 0 29 14 266 5 0 285 0 0 0 0 0 861 App. Total 0 96 3.8 0.2 48.3 0 51.7 0 4.9 93.3 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .899 .525 .250 .871 .700 .000 .750 .000 .806 .700 .937 .250 .000 .963 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .932 Pine Tree Road SiteAccessPine Tree Road Right 0 Thru 525 Left 21 HV 1 InOut Total 280 547 827 Right14Thru0Left15HV0OutTotalIn352964Left 5 Thru 266 Right 14 HV 0 Out TotalIn 540 285825Left0Thru0Right0HV0TotalOutIn505Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Cars & HV Peak Hour Data North File Name : Pine Tree @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Peds Pine Tree Road Southbound Site Access Westbound Pine Tree Road Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apprch %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total % File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars & Hv Site Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 31 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 44 07:30 AM 1 0 4 0 4 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 1 80 07:45 AM 1 0 2 0 2 46 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 0 71 Total 2 0 6 0 7 135 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 69 5 1 226 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 3 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 1 56 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 68 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 95 08:30 AM 2 0 2 0 3 55 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 91 08:45 AM 2 0 4 0 1 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 84 Total 4 0 6 0 9 199 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 2 326 04:00 PM 4 0 4 0 0 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 39 2 0 82 04:15 PM 6 0 3 0 1 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 1 0 85 04:30 PM 5 0 1 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 2 0 104 04:45 PM 4 0 4 0 3 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 2 0 103 Total 19 0 12 0 4 160 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 170 7 0 374 05:00 PM 8 0 1 0 3 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 1 0 112 05:15 PM 3 0 2 0 0 40 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 86 05:30 PM 4 0 2 0 0 29 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 77 05:45 PM 3 0 1 0 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 58 Total 18 0 6 0 4 142 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 159 1 0 333 Grand Total 43 0 30 0 24 636 1 8 2 0 0 0 0 499 13 3 1259 Apprch %58.9 0 41.1 0 3.6 95.1 0.1 1.2 100 0 0 0 0 96.9 2.5 0.6 Total %3.4 0 2.4 0 1.9 50.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 0 0 0 0 39.6 1 0.2 File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 2 Site Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 27 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 1 26 56 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 68 0 4 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 21 95 08:30 AM 2 0 2 0 4 3 55 0 1 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 28 91 08:45 AM 2 0 4 0 6 1 49 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 28 84 Total Volume 4 0 6 0 10 9 199 0 5 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 2 103 326 App. Total 40 0 60 0 4.2 93.4 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 98.1 0 1.9 PHF .500 .000 .375 .000 .417 .750 .732 .000 .313 .720 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .902 .000 .500 .920 .858 Site Access EllisHollowRoadEllisHollowRoadRight 4 Thru 0 Left 6 HV 0 InOut Total 9 10 19 Right9Thru199Left0HV5OutTotalIn107213320Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 HV 0 Out TotalIn 0 00Left0Thru101Right0HV2TotalOutIn203103306Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Cars & Hv Peak Hour Data North File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 3 Site Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 5 0 1 0 6 0 51 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 2 0 47 104 04:45 PM 4 0 4 0 8 3 44 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 2 0 48 103 05:00 PM 8 0 1 0 9 3 49 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 1 0 51 112 05:15 PM 3 0 2 0 5 0 40 1 0 41 1 0 0 0 1 0 39 0 0 39 86 Total Volume 20 0 8 0 28 6 184 1 0 191 1 0 0 0 1 0 180 5 0 185 405 App. Total 71.4 0 28.6 0 3.1 96.3 0.5 0 100 0 0 0 0 97.3 2.7 0 PHF .625 .000 .500 .000 .778 .500 .902 .250 .000 .918 .250 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .900 .625 .000 .907 .904 Site Access EllisHollowRoadEllisHollowRoadRight 20 Thru 0 Left 8 HV 0 InOut Total 11 28 39 Right6Thru184Left1HV0OutTotalIn189191380Left 0 Thru 0 Right 1 HV 0 Out TotalIn 1 12Left5Thru180Right0HV0TotalOutIn204185389Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Cars & Hv Peak Hour Data North File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Mirabito Site Access Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Peds Site Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total 07:15 AM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 08:15 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 04:30 PM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 05:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:45 PM 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Total 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Grand Total 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 Apprch %0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total %0 0 0 34.1 0 0 0 65.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Plaza Access Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Cars & HV Plaza Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Right Thru Left HV Int. Total 07:00 AM 1 0 2 0 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 37 07:15 AM 3 0 0 0 6 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 1 2 45 07:30 AM 2 0 2 2 8 44 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 7 3 84 07:45 AM 3 0 3 0 13 43 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 92 Total 9 0 7 2 35 121 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 49 20 6 258 08:00 AM 1 0 1 0 9 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 1 71 08:15 AM 6 0 2 2 7 57 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 23 4 4 109 08:30 AM 3 0 3 1 9 48 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 13 1 97 08:45 AM 3 0 3 1 12 52 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 22 7 1 104 Total 13 0 9 4 37 195 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 82 25 7 381 04:00 PM 9 0 12 0 12 23 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 38 9 0 106 04:15 PM 9 0 15 1 9 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 9 1 98 04:30 PM 22 1 25 0 8 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 34 5 1 129 04:45 PM 15 0 17 0 11 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 10 1 130 Total 55 1 69 1 40 106 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 150 33 3 463 05:00 PM 19 0 20 0 6 37 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 47 6 1 138 05:15 PM 16 0 23 1 4 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 47 5 4 127 05:30 PM 9 0 13 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 3 0 77 05:45 PM 6 0 22 0 5 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 5 0 85 Total 50 0 78 1 21 94 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 156 19 5 427 Grand Total 127 1 163 8 133 516 2 23 0 0 1 0 0 437 97 21 1529 Apprch %42.5 0.3 54.5 2.7 19.7 76.6 0.3 3.4 0 0 100 0 0 78.7 17.5 3.8 Total %8.3 0.1 10.7 0.5 8.7 33.7 0.1 1.5 0 0 0.1 0 0 28.6 6.3 1.4 File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Plaza Access Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 2 Plaza Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 12:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 1 0 1 0 2 9 38 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 1 22 71 08:15 AM 6 0 2 2 10 7 57 0 4 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 4 4 31 109 08:30 AM 3 0 3 1 7 9 48 0 2 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 13 1 31 97 08:45 AM 3 0 3 1 7 12 52 1 2 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 7 1 30 104 Total Volume 13 0 9 4 26 37 195 1 8 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 25 7 114 381 App. Total 50 0 34.6 15.4 15.4 80.9 0.4 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 71.9 21.9 6.1 PHF .542 .000 .750 .500 .650 .771 .855 .250 .500 .886 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .891 .481 .438 .919 .874 Plaza Access EllisHollowRoadEllisHollowRoadRight 13 Thru 0 Left 9 HV 4 InOut Total 62 26 88 Right37Thru195Left1HV8OutTotalIn91241332Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 HV 0 Out TotalIn 1 01Left25Thru82Right0HV7TotalOutIn208114322Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Cars & HV Peak Hour Data North File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Plaza Access Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 3 Plaza Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Right Thru Left HV App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 22 1 25 0 48 8 31 0 2 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 5 1 40 129 04:45 PM 15 0 17 0 32 11 29 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 10 1 58 130 05:00 PM 19 0 20 0 39 6 37 0 2 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 6 1 54 138 05:15 PM 16 0 23 1 40 4 26 0 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 5 4 56 127 Total Volume 72 1 85 1 159 29 123 0 5 157 0 0 0 0 0 0 175 26 7 208 524 App. Total 45.3 0.6 53.5 0.6 18.5 78.3 0 3.2 0 0 0 0 0 84.1 12.5 3.4 PHF .818 .250 .850 .250 .828 .659 .831 .000 .625 .872 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .931 .650 .438 .897 .949 Plaza Access EllisHollowRoadEllisHollowRoadRight 72 Thru 1 Left 85 HV 1 InOut Total 55 159 214 Right29Thru123Left0HV5OutTotalIn260157417Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 HV 0 Out TotalIn 1 01Left26Thru175Right0HV7TotalOutIn195208403Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Cars & HV Peak Hour Data North File Name : Ellis Hollow @ Plaza Access Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 3/16/2023 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Peds Plaza Access Southbound Ellis Hollow Road Westbound Northbound Ellis Hollow Road Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Int. Total Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apprch %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total % 38 N Main St. Pittston, Pa. 18643 O :(570)299-5865 F: (570) 299-7865 Page 1 of 1 July 6, 2023 Christine Balestra, Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Energy Code Supplement, Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path Commercial Buildings Dear Chris, This letter is to state the design team’s intention for compliance with the Town of Ithaca, NY, Energy Code Supplement, for the construction of a new slab on grade single story structure located in Ithaca, NY. There will be two (2) tenants. Mirabito Gas Station is approximately 4,650 SF and Burger King 1,800 SF. The new program for the Mirabito Gas Station will consist of the following rooms, as indicated on the floor plans submitted (restroom, mechanical/electrical room, walk in cooler, beer cave, freezer, office, two storage rooms, Kitchen/Prep Area, Checkout, and IT room. The new program for the Burger King will consist of a (Kitchen Prep area, Seating area, office, storage, M/W toilet rooms ). This project will follow the Energy Code Supplement, Compliance Checklist. The project is a commercial building that will use the Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path to meet the energy efficiency requirements. The project will earn the required points from the following improvements: Heat pumps for space heating Heat pumps for service water heating Heating systems in heated space Right-lighting Walkability Efficient building shape Modest window-to-wall ratio Meet NY Stretch Code Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces Custom energy improvement The project will also follow the applicable requirements for building envelope, mechanical systems, electrical power and lighting systems, and commissioning as specified in the Energy Code Supplement. .At this stage of the design process (Shell & Core) no calculations or other materials are included. Additional information will be submitted later for compliance documentation purposes. Very Truly Yours, Charles C Smith, P.E. Principal LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 1/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Catalog # :Project : Date :Prepared By : Mirada Small Area (MRS) Outdoor LED Area Light FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS Construction Rugged die-cast aluminum housing contains factory prewired driver and optical unit. Cast aluminum wiring access door located underneath. Fixtures are finished with LSI’s DuraGrip® polyester powder coat finishing process. The DuraGrip finish withstands extreme weather changes without cracking or peeling. Other standard LSI finishes available. Consult factory. Shipping weight: 27 lbs in carton. Optical System State-of-the-Art one piece silicone optic sheet delivers industry leading optical control with an integrated gasket to provide IP66 rated seal. Proprietary silicone refractor optics provide exceptional coverage and uniformity in distribution types 2, 3, 4, 5W, FT, and LC/RC. Silicone optical material does not yellow or crack with age and provides a typical light transmittance of 93-95%. Zero uplight. Available in 5000K, 4000K, and 3000K color temperatures per ANSI C78.377 Minimum CRI of 70. Integral louver (IL) and integral half louver (IH) options available for enhanced backlight control. Electrical High-performance driver features over- voltage, under-voltage, short-circuit and over temperature protection. 0-10V dimming (10% - 100%) standard. Standard Universal Voltage (120-277 VAC) Input 50/60 Hz or optional High Voltage 347-480 VAC). L70 Calculated Life: >60k Hours Total harmonic distortion: <20% Operating temperature: -40°C to +50°C 40°F to +122°F). 30L lumen packages rated to +40°C. Power factor: >.90 Input power stays constant over life. Field replaceable 10kV surge protection device meets a minimum Category C Low operation (per ANSI/IEEE C62.41.2). High-efficacy LEDs mounted to metal-core circuit board to maximize heat dissipation Driver is fully encased in potting material for moisture resistance and complies with FCC standards. Driver and key electronic components can easily be accessed. Controls Optional integral passive infrared Bluetooth™ motion and photocell sensor. Fixtures operate independently and can be commissioned via iOS or Android configuration app. LSI’s AirLink™ wireless control system options reduce energy and maintenance costs while optimizing light quality 24/7. Installation Designed to mount to square or round poles. A single fastener secures the hinged door, underneath the housing and provides quick & easy access to the electrical compartment. Included terminal block accepts up to 12 ga. wire. Utilizes LSI’s traditional B3 drill pattern. Warranty LSI luminaires carry a 5-year limited warranty. Refer to https://www.lsicorp.com/ resources/terms-conditions-warranty/ for more information. Listings Listed to UL 1598 and UL 8750. Meets Buy American Act requirements. Dark Sky compliant; with 3000K color temperature selection. Title 24 Compliant; see local ordinance for qualification information. RoHS compliant Suitable for wet locations. IP66 rated Luminaire per IEC 60598-1. 3G rated for ANSI C136.31 high vibration applications are qualified. IK08 rated luminiare per IEC 66262 me- chanical impact code DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List atwww.designlights. org/QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. QUICK LINKS Ordering Guide Performance Photometrics Dimensions OVERVIEW Lumen Package 6,000 - 30,000 Wattage Range 39 - 209 Efficacy Range (LPW)112 - 163 Weight lbs(kg)20 (9.1) Control Options IMSBT, ALB, ALS, 7-Pin, PCI LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 2/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) LSIIndustriesInc. 10000AllianceRd. Cincinnati, OH45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSIIndustriesInc. AllRightsReserved. Specicationsanddimensionssubjecttoindustrystandardtolerances. Specicationssubjecttochangewithoutnotice. Havequestions? Callusat () - ORDERING GUIDE Back to Quick Links TYPICAL ORDER EXAMPLE: MRS LED 18L SIL FT UNV DIM 40 70CRI ALBCS1 BLK IH Prefix Light Source Lumen Package Lens Distribution Orientation2 Voltage Driver MRS - Mirada Small Area Light LED 6L - 6,000 lms, 39W 9L - 9,000 lms, 63W 12L - 12,000 lms, 86W 15L - 15,000 lms, 111W 18L - 18,000 lms, 135W 21L - 21,000 lms, 165W 24L - 24,000 lms, 196W 30L - 30,000 lms, 209W8 Custom Lumen Packages1 SIL - Silicone 2 - Type 2 3 - Type 3 4 - Type 4 5W - Type 5 Wide FT - Forward Throw LC - Left Corner RC - Right Corner blank) - standard L- Optics rotated left 90° R - Optics rotated right 90° UNV - Universal Voltage (120-277V) HV - High Voltage (347-480V) DIM - 0-10V Dimming (0-10%) Color Temp Color Rendering Controls (Choose One)Finish Options 50 - 5,000 CCT 40 - 4,000 CCT 30 - 3,000 CCT 70CRI - 70 CRI (Blank) - None Wireless Controls System ALSC - AirLink Synapse ControlSystemALSCS2 - AirLink Synapse Control System with 12-20’ MH Motion Sensor8 ALSCS4 - AirLink Synapse Control System with 20-40’ MH Motion Sensor8 ALBMR1LR - AirLink Blue Long Range Wireless Motion & Photo Sensor Controller (8-15’ MH)4,8 ALBMR2LR - AirLink Blue Long Range Wireless Motion & Photo Sensor Controller (16-40’ MH)4,8 Stand-AloneControlsEXT - 0-10v Dimming leads extended to housingexteriorCR7P - 7 Pin Control Receptacle ANSI C136.41 3 IMSBT1L - Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor (8-24’ MH)4, 8 IMSBT2L - Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor (25-40’ MH)4, 8 BLK - Black BRZ - Dark Bronze GMG - Gun Metal Gray GPT - Graphite MSV - Metallic Silver PLP - Platinum Plus SVG - Satin Verde Green WHT - White Blank) - None IH - Integral Half Louver (Moderate Spill Light Cutoff)2 IL - Integral Louver (Sharp Spill Light Cutoff)2 Need more information? Click here for our glossary Have additional questions? Call us at (800) 436-7800 Accessory Ordering Information5 CONTROLS ACCESSORIES Description Order Number Twist Lock Photocell (120V) for use with CR7P 122514 Twist Lock Photocell (208-277) for use with CR7P 122515 Twist Lock Photocell (347V) for use with CR7P 122516 Twist Lock Photocell (480V) for use with CR7P 1225180 AirLink 5 Pin Twist Lock Controller 661409 AirLink 7 Pin Twist Lock Controller 661410 Shorting Cap for use with CR7P 149328 FUSING OPTIONS7 Description Order Number Single Fusing (120V) See Fusing Accessory Guide Single Fusing (277V) Double Fusing (208V, 240V) Double Fusing (480V) Double Fusing (347V) 1. Custom lumen and wattage packages available, consult factory. Values are within industry standard tolerances but not DLC listed. 2. Not available on “Type 5W” distribution. 3. Control device or shorting cap must be ordered separately. See Accessory Ordering Information. 4. Motion sensors are field configurable via the LSI app that can be downloaded from your smartphone’s native app store. 5. Accessories are shipped separately and field installed. 6. “CLR” denotes finish. See Finish options. 7. Fusing must be located in hand hole of pole. See Fusing Accessory Guide for compatability. 8. ALSC, ALB, and IMSBT not available with 30L HV. EXTERNAL SHIELDING OPTIONS 3” External Shield See Shielding Guide6” External Shield LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 3/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) Back to QuickLinksACCESSORIES OPTICS ROTATION ACCESSORIES/OPTIONS Integral Louver (IL) and House-Side Shield (IH) Integral louver (IL) and half louver (IH) accessory shields available for improved backlight control without sacrificing street side performance. LSI’s Integral Louver (IL) and Integral House-Side Shield (IH) options deliver backlight control that significantly reduces spill light behind the poles for applications with pole locations close to adjacent properties. The design maximizes forward reflected light while reducing glare, maintaining the optical distribution selected, and most importantly eliminating light trespass. Both options rotate with the optical distribution. 7 Pin Photoelectric Control 7-pin ANSI C136.41-2013 control receptacle option available for twist lock photocontrols or wireless control modules. Control accessories sold separately. Dimming leads from the receptacle will be connected to the driver dimming leads (Consult factory for alternate wiring). Luminaire Shown with CR7P Luminaire Shown with Integral Louver (IL) Luminaire Shown with IMSBT Option IMSBT MOUNTING ACCESSORIES SHIELDING, POLES & MISC. ACCESSORIES Side ArmUniversal Mounting Bracket Mounts to 3” square or round (tapered/straight) poles with (2) mounting hole spaces between 3.5” to 5”Part Number: BKA UMB CLR ShieldingIntegral Louver Field Install Integral Louver provides maximum backlight control by shiedling each individual row of LEDS Part Number: 763445 Quick Mount Plate True one person installation to existing/new contruction poles with hole spaces beteen 2.4 to 4. 6” Part Number: BKS PQM B3B5 XX CLR Integral Half Louver Field Install Integral Half Louver provides great backlight control without impacting front side distribution.Part Number: 763446 15° Tilt Quick Mount Plate True one person installation to existing/new contruction poles with hole spaces beteen 2.4 to 4. 6”Part Number: BKS PQ15 B3B5 XX CLR External Shield External shield blocks view of light source from anyside of luminaire, additional shielding configurations available Part Number: 783607BLK (3”) / 776538BLK ( 6”)Tenon / SlipfitterAdjustable Slipfitter Mounts onto a 2” (51mm) IP, 2.375” (60mm) O.D. tenon and provides 180° of tilt (max 45° above horizontal) Part Number: BKA ASF CLR PolesSquare Poles 14 - 39’ steel and aluminum poles in 4”, 5” and 6” sizes for retrofit and new construction Part Number: 4SQ/ 5SQ/6SQ Square Tenon Top Mounts onto a 2” (51mm) IP, 2.375” (60mm) O.D. tenon and allows for mounting up to 4 luminaires Part Number: BKA XNM * Round Poles 10 - 30’ steel and aluminum poles in 4” and 5” sizes for retrofit and new construction Part Number: 4RP/5RP Square Internal Slipfitter Mounts inside 4” or 5” square pole and allows for mounting up to 4 lumianires Part Number: BKA X_ ISF * CLR Tapered Poles 20’ - 39’ steel and aluminum poles for retrofit and new construction Part Number: RTP Wall Mount/ Wood PoleWall Mount Bracket Mounts onto vertical wall surface ( hardware/anchors not included) Part Number: BKS XBO WM CLR Misc.Bird Spikes 10’ linear bird spike (2’ recommended per luminaire) silcone adhesive (covers approximately 25’ linear fee of bird spike) and application tool Spike Part Number: 751631 Adhesive Part Number: 751632 Caulk Gun Part Number: 751636 Wood Pole Bracket Mounts onto wooden poles (6” minimum OD, hardware/anchors not inlcuded) Part Number: BKS XBO WP CLR Replace CLR with paint finish description Replace X with: 2’Replace XX with SQ for square pole or RD for round pole (3” OD)Replace * with S (Single), D180 (Double @180°), D90 ( Double @90°), T90 (Triple), Q90 (Quad)Replace _ with 4 (4” square pole) or 5 (5” square pole)Optics Rotated Left Straight Optics Rotated Right Use Type R Optics Rotated Right)Pole EXAMPLE Use Type LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 4/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) PERFORMANCE Back to Quick Links DELIVERED LUMENS* Lumen Package Distribution CRI 3000K CCT 4000K CCT 5000K CCT WattageDeliveredLumensEfficacyBUGRatingDeliveredLumensEfficacyBUGRatingDeliveredLumensEfficacyBUGRating 6L 2 70 5918 149 B2-U0-G1 6136 155 B2-U0-G1 6122 155 B2-U0-G1 39 3 6016 152 B1-U0-G2 6238 158 B1-U0-G2 6224 157 B1-U0-G2 4 5967 153 B1-U0-G2 6333 162 B1-U0-G3 6136 157 B1-U0-G2 5W 5690 144 B3-U0-G1 5899 149 B3-U0-G1 5886 1479 B3-U0-G1 FT 5822 147 B1-U0-G1 6037 152 B1-U0-G1 6023 152 B1-U0-G1 LC 6003 154 B1-U0-G2 6371 163 B1-U0-G2 6173 158 B1-U0-G2 RC 5964 153 B1-U0-G2 6329 162 B1-U0-G2 6132 157 B1-U0-G2 9L 2 70 9091 145 B2-U0-G2 9484 152 B2-U0-G2 9462 151 B2-U0-G2 63 3 9241 148 B2-U0-G2 9641 154 B2-U0-G2 9619 154 B2-U0-G2 4 9214 146 B2-U0-G3 9778 155 B2-U0-G3 9474 150 B2-U0-G3 5W 8740 140 B3-U0-G2 9118 146 B3-U0-G2 9097 144 B3-U0-G2 FT 8943 143 B2-U0-G2 9330 149 B2-U0-G2 9308 149 B2-U0-G2 LC 9269 147 B2-U0-G3 9837 156 B2-U0-G3 9531 151 B2-U0-G3 RC 9208 146 B2-U0-G2 9772 155 B2-U0-G3 9468 150 B2-U0-G3 12L 2 70 12132 141 B3-U0-G2 12685 148 B3-U0-G2 12514 146 B3-U0-G2 86 3 12333 143 B2-U0-G2 12894 150 B2-U0-G2 12721 148 B2-U0-G2 4 12277 143 B2-U0-G3 13029 152 B2-U0-G3 12623 147 B2-U0-G3 5W 11664 136 B4-U0-G2 12195 142 B4-U0-G2 12031 140 B4-U0-G2 FT 11935 139 B2-U0-G2 12479 145 B2-U0-G2 12311 143 B2-U0-G2 LC 12351 144 B2-U0-G3 13108 152 B2-U0-G3 12700 148 B2-U0-G3 RC 12271 143 B2-U0-G3 13022 151 B2-U0-G3 12617 147 B2-U0-G3 15L 2 70 14220 128 B3-U0-G2 15167 137 B3-U0-G2 14488 131 B3-U0-G2 111 3 14938 135 B2-U0-G2 15933 144 B2-U0-G2 15219 137 B2-U0-G2 4 14792 133 B2-U0-G4 15698 141 B2-U0-G4 15209 137 B2-U0-G4 5W 14304 129 B4-U0-G2 15257 137 B4-U0-G2 14574 131 B4-U0-G2 FT 14342 129 B2-U0-G2 15297 138 B2-U0-G2 14612 132 B2-U0-G2 LC 14881 134 B2-U0-G3 15793 142 B2-U0-G3 15301 138 B2-U0-G3 RC 14784 133 B2-U0-G3 15689 141 B2-U0-G3 15201 137 B2-U0-G3 18L 2 70 16438 122 B3-U0-G2 17532 130 B3-U0-G3 16747 124 B3-U0-G2 135 3 17267 128 B3-U0-G3 18417 137 B3-U0-G3 17592 131 B3-U0-G3 4 17101 127 B3-U-G4 18149 134 B3-U-G4 17584 130 B3-U-G4 5W 16535 123 B4-U0-G2 17636 133 B5-U0-G2 16846 125 B4-U0-G2 FT 16578 123 B3-U0-G2 17682 131 B3-U0-G2 16890 125 B3-U0-G2 LC 17204 127 B3-U0-G3 18258 135 B3-U0-G3 17689 131 B3-U0-G3 RC 17091 127 B2-U0-G3 18138 134 B2-U0-G3 17574 130 B2-U0-G3 21L 2 70 19488 118 B3-U0-G3 20786 126 B3-U0-G3 19885 120 B3-U0-G3 165 3 20472 124 B3-U0-G3 21835 132 B3-U0-G3 20857 126 B3-U0-G3 4 20279 123 B3-U0-G4 21521 130 B3-U0-G5 20851 126 B3-U0-G5 5W 19604 119 B5-U0-G3 20909 126 B5-U0-G3 19973 121 B5-U0-G3 FT 19655 119 B3-U0-G3 20964 127 B3-U0-G3 20025 121 B3-U0-G3 LC 20401 124 B3-U0-G4 21651 131 B3-U0-G4 20977 127 B3-U0-G4 RC 20268 123 B3-U0-G3 21509 130 B3-U0-G4 20840 126 B3-U0-G3 LEDs are frequently updated therefore values are nominal. LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 5/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) ELECTRICAL DATA (AMPS)* Lumens 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V 6L 0.34 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.09 9L 0.52 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.18 0.13 12L 0.72 0.41 0.36 0.31 0.25 0.18 15L 0.93 0.53 0.46 0.40 0.32 0.23 18L 1.12 0.65 0.56 0.49 0.39 0.28 21L 1.38 0.80 0.69 0.60 0.48 0.34 24L 1.63 0.94 0.82 0.71 0.56 0.41 30L 1.74 1.00 0.87 0.75 0.60 0.43 Electrical data at 25°C (77°F). Actual wattage may differ by +/-10% RECOMMENDED LUMEN MAINTENANCE1 Ambient Temp Lumen Multiplier C 0 hrs.2 25K hrs.2 50K hrs.2 75K hrs.3 100K hrs.3 0 C - 25 C 100%95%89%84%79% 40 C 100%94%87%80%74% 1. Lumen maintenance values at 25°C are calculated per TM-21 based on LM-80 data and in-situ luminaire testing. 2. In accordance with IESNA TM-21-11, Projected Values represent interpolated value based on time durations that are within six times (6X)the IESNA LM-80-08 total test duration (in hours) for the device under testing ((DUT) i.e. the packaged LED chip). 3. In accordance with IESNA TM-21-11, Calculated Values represent time durations that exceed six times NA LM-80-08 total test duration (in hours) for the device under testing ((DUT) i.e. the packaged LED chip). DELIVERED LUMENS* Lumen Package Distribution CRI 3000K CCT 4000K CCT 5000K CCT WattageDeliveredLumensEfficacyBUGRatingDeliveredLumensEfficacyBUGRatingDeliveredLumensEfficacyBUGRating 24L 2 70 21976 112 B3-U0-G3 23439 120 B3-U0-G3 22390 114 B3-U0-G3 196 3 23085 118 B3-U0-G3 24622 126 B3-U0-G3 23519 120 B3-U0-G3 4 23190 117 B3-U0-G5 24758 124 B3-U0-G5 23888 120 B3-U0-G5 5W 22105 113 B5-U0-G3 23578 120 B5-U0-G3 22522 115 B5-U0-G3 FT 22164 113 B3-U0-G3 23640 121 B3-U0-G3 22581 115 B3-U0-G3 LC 23330 117 B3-U0-G4 24907 125 B3-U0-G4 24032 121 B3-U0-G4 RC 23117 117 B3-U0-G4 24744 124 B3-U0-G4 23874 120 B3-U0-G4 30L 2 70 30078 144 B4-U0-G3 29485 143 B4-U0-G4 30697 147 B4-U0-G3 209 3 31711 154 B3-U0-G3 31086 151 B3-U0-G3 32364 157 B3-U0-G3 4 30459 148 B4-U0-G5 29858 145 B4-U0-G5 31085 151 B4-U0-G5 5W 30588 149 B5-U0-G3 29985 146 B5-U0-G3 31218 152 B5-U0-G3 FT 31585 153 B3-U0-G4 30962 150 B3-U0-G4 32235 156 B4-U0-G4 LC 32303 155 B3-U0-G5 31666 152 B3-U0-G5 32968 158 B3-U0-G5 RC 31943 153 B3-U0-G4 31313 150 B3-U0-G4 32600 156 B3-U0-G5 LEDs are frequently updated therefore values are nominal. PERFORMANCE Back to Quick Links LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 6/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) PHOTOMETRICS MRS-LED-18L-SIL-3-40-70CRI 5 1 2 5 2548 5097 7645 10193 1 2 20’ Mounting Height / 20’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve 5 1 2 5 2556 5113 7669 10225 1 2 20’ Mounting Height / 20’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve Luminaire photometry has been conducted by an accredited laboratory in accordance with IESNA LM-79. As specified by IESNA LM-79 the entire luminaire is tested as the source resulting in a luminaire efficiency of 100%. Luminaire Data Type 2 Distribution Description 4000 Kelvin, 70 CRI Delivered Lumens 17,532 Watts 135 Efficacy 130 IES Type Type II - Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 Luminaire Data Type 3 Distribution Description 4000 Kelvin, 70 CRI Delivered Lumens 18,417 Watts 135 Efficacy 137 IES Type Type III - Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°2831 16% Medium (30-60)°10310 59% High (60-80)°4208 24% Very High (80-90)°184 1% Uplight (90-180)°0 0% Total Flux 17532 100% Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°2329 13% Medium (30-60)°10634 61% High (60-80)°5246 30% Very High (80-90)°208 1% Uplight (90-180)°0 0% Total Flux 18417 100% MRS-LED-18L-SIL-2-40-70CRI Back to Quick Links LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 7/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) Back to QuickLinksPHOTOMETRICS (CONT) MRS-LED-18L-SIL-FT-40-70CRI MRS-LED-18L-SIL-4-40-70CRI 5 1 2 5 2755 5510 8265 11020 1 2 20’ Mounting Height / 20’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve 5 1 2 5 2604 5208 7811 10415 1 2 20’ Mounting Height / 20’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve Luminaire Data Type FT Distribution Description 4000 Kelvin, 70 CRI Delivered Lumens 17,682 Watts 135 Efficacy 131 IES Type Type III - Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 Luminaire Data Type 4 Distribution Description 4000 Kelvin, 70 CRI Delivered Lumens 18,149 Watts 135 Efficacy 134 IES Type Type IV - Very Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G4 Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°2255 13% Medium (30-60)°9463 54% High (60-80)°5696 32% Very High (80-90)°268 2% Uplight (90-180)°0 0% Total Flux 17682 100% Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°1671 9% Medium (30-60)°7615 42% High (60-80)°8074 44% Very High (80-90)°790 4% Uplight (90-180)°0 0% Total Flux 18149 100% LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 8/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) Back to QuickLinksPHOTOMETRICS (CONT) MRM-LED-30L-SIL-5W-40-70CRI MRS-LED-18L-SIL-LC-40-70CRI 5 1 2 2442 4883 7325 9766 1 2 20’ Mounting Height / 20’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve 5 1 2 5 5217 10435 15652 20869 1 2 20’ Mounting Height / 20’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve Luminaire Data Type 5W Distribution Description 4000 Kelvin, 70 CRI Delivered Lumens 17,636 Watts 135 Efficacy 131 IES Type Type VS - Short BUG Rating B4-U0-G2 Luminaire Data Left Corner Distribution Description 4000 Kelvin, 70 CRI Delivered Lumens 18,258 Watts 135 Efficacy 135 IES Type N/A BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°1646 9% Medium (30-60)°7453 43% High (60-80)°8405 48% Very High (80-90)°132 1% Uplight (90-180)°0 0% Total Flux 17636 100% Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°2412 13% Medium (30-60)°7504 41% High (60-80)°7698 42% Very High (80-90)°644 4% Uplight (90-180)°0 0% Total Flux 18258 100% LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 9/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) PRODUCT DIMENSIONS Back to Quick Links 24.97 7.10 13.00 2.422 0.563 2x B3 Drill Pattern Back to QuickLinksPHOTOMETRICS (CONT) MRM-LED-30L-SIL-5W-40-70CRI 4912 9824 14735 19647 1 2 5 1 2 5 20’ Mounting Height / 20’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle PolarCurveLuminaireData Right Corner Distribution Description 4000 Kelvin, 70 CRI Delivered Lumens 18,138 Watts 135 Efficacy 134 IES Type N/A BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30)°2317 13% Medium (30-60)°8066 44% High (60-80)°7214 40% Very High (80-90)°541 3% Uplight (90-180)°0 0% Total Flux 18138 100% Luminaire EPA Chart Tilt Degree 0°15°30°45° Single 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 D180°0.8 1.5 1.9 2.4 D90°0.9 1.5 1.9 2.4 T90°0.9 1.6 21 2.5 TN120°0.9 1.9 2.7 3.0 Q90°0.9 1.6 2.1 2.5 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Page 10/10 Rev. 10/23/24 SPEC.1046.B.1122 Type:Mirada Small Area Light (MRS) CONTROLS Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor (IMSBTxL) Slim low profile sensor provides multi-level control based on motion and/or daylight. Sensor controls 0-10 VDC LED drivers and is IP66 rated for cold and wet locations (-40°F to 167°F). Two unique PIR lenses are available and used based on fixture mounting height. All control parameters are adjustable via an iOS or Android App capable of storing and transmitting sensor profiles. Click here to learn more details about IMSBT AirLink Blue (ALBMRxLR, ALBCSx) Wireless Bluetooth Mesh Outdoor Lighting Control System that provides energy savings, code compliance and enhanced safety/security for parking lots and parking garages. Three key components; Bluetooth wireless radio/sensor controller, Time Keeper and an iOS App. Capable of grouping multiple fixtures and sensors as well as scheduling time-based events by zone. Radio/Sensor Controller is factory integrated into Area/ Site, Wall Mounted, Parking Garage and Canopy luminaires. Click here to learn more details about AirLink Blue Sensor Sequence of Operations Standard Programming On Event Off Event On Light Level Dim Light Level Daylight Harvesting Delay To Off Sensitivity IMSBTxL Motion No Motion 100%N/A On; Auto Calibration 20 minutes High Operation Description On Event Trigger that activates lights to turn on; either automatic via motion detected or manually activated via push of button. Off Event Trigger that activates lights to turn off; either automatic via no motion detected or manually activated via push of button. On Light Level The light level that the fixtures will turn on to when ON EVENT occurs. Dim Light Level The light level that the fixtures will dim down to when no motion is detected. Delay to Dim The amount of time after which no motion is detected that the fixtures will be triggered to dim down. This sequence is optional, and sensor can be programmed to only trigger the fixture to turn off by entering 100% in this field. Delay to Off The amount of time after which no motion is detected that the fixtures will be triggered to turn off. If delay to dim is part of the programmed functionality, this is the amount of time after which no motion is detected after the fixture have already dimmed down. Sensitivity The sensitivity can be set to high, medium, low, or auto where applicable. High will detect smaller, simple motions. Low will only detect larger more complex motions. Auto temperature calibration adjusts the PIR sensitivity as ambient temperature rises to increase detection of heat movement through the field of view. Apple Apple AndroidLEVITONApp AirLink Blue App Back to Quick Links LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Specifi cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Specifi cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at (800) 436-7800 Type : Project : Catalog # : Date : Prepared By : Page 1/6 Rev. 12/05/23 Scottsdale Vertex™ (SCV) Petroleum Canopy Light Construction Rugged low-profile die-cast aluminum housing, optical unit, and driver cover. Below canopy access to optical chamber and driver housing for serviceability. IP66 rated luminaire protects integral components from dust and water. Fixtures are finished with LSI’s DuraGrip® polyester powder coat finishing process. The DuraGrip finish withstands extreme weather changes without cracking or peeling. Four fasteners secure the door frame to housing. Door frame also provides quick and easy access to the electrical compartment for servicing. Shipping weight: 18.5 lbs in carton. Optical System Symmetrical distribution utilizes a clear tempered flat glass lens to uniformly illuminate the area under the gas canopy. Combination Forward Throw distribution uses clear tempered flat glass and optical grade PMMA acrylic lens to create an industry leading unique distribution pattern to illuminate the area under the gas canopy and the area between the gas canopy and convenience store eliminating the need for extra floodlights. Available in 5000K, 4000K and 3000K color temperatures. Minimum CRI of 80. Electrical High-performance factory programmable driver; features include over-voltage, undervoltage, short circuit and over temperature protection. Integral 6kV surge protection that meets IEEE C62.41.2 and ANSI C82.77-5 Location Category C Low standards. Additional field replaceable 10kV surge protection device meets a minimum Category C Low operation (per ANSI/IEEE C62.41.2). Custom lumen and wattage packages available. 0-10V dimming (10% - 100%) standard. Standard Universal Voltage (120-277 Vac) Input 50/60 Hz or optional High Voltage 347-480 Vac). L80 Calculated Life: >100k Hours (See Lumen Maintenance on Page 2). Total harmonic distortion: <20%. Operating temperature: -40°C to +50°C. 40°F to +122°F) when mounted to Steel/ Aluminum surfaces for 10L, 13L, & 15L Lumen Packages, +45°C for 20L Lumen Package, and +35°C for 23L Lumen Package. If mounted to a non-metallic surface, reduce ambient by 5°C. Power factor: >0.90. High-efficacy LEDs are mountedto (4) circuit boards to maximize heat dissipation. Driver components are fully encased in potting material for moisture resistance. Driver complies with FCC standards. Hazardous Location Designed for lighter than air fuel applications. Product is suitable for Class 1 Division 2 with all lumen packages and distributions only when properly installed per LSI installation instructions. Models with optional controls are not approved for Class 1, Division 2 applications. Gas Groups A, B, C, and D – Group A: Acetylene / Group B: Hydrogen / Group C: Propane and Ethylene / Group D: Benzene, Butane, Methane & Propane. Installation (Standard) Installs in a 12” or 16” deck pan. Four fasteners are provided for use in single deck steel canopies. Other suitable fasteners may be required and provided by others. Unit is designed to quickly retrofit into existing Scottsdale (4”) hole. Aluminum locking collar and gasket are included and required for complete seal and support of canopy deck. Retrofit panels areavailable for existing Encores, Richmond, 2x2 Universal, and more. Direct mount to surface or recessed J box with hardware bracket kit ordered separately as an accessory. Installation (REDiMount) Patent pending 3 piece quick mounting system; components include collar, capsule and connector. Designed to reduce canopy penetrations and increase installation efficiency. Installs in 12” or 16” deck pan. Warranty LSI luminaires carry a 5-year limited warranty. Refer to https://www.lsicorp.com/ resources/terms-conditions-warranty/ for more information. Listings Listed to UL 1598 and UL 8750. Meets Buy American Act requirements. State of California Title 24 Compliant with ALBMRx and IMSBTxL option. DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) Premium qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC Premium qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at www.designlights.org/QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. IDA compliant with 3000K or lower color temperature. OVERVIEW Lumen Package (lm) 9,000 - 23,000 Wattage Range (W)67 - 188 Efficacy Range (LPW)109 - 154 Weight lbs (kg)18.5 (8.4) Controls ALBMR, IMSBTxL QUICK LINKS FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS SPEC.1019.C.1222 IP66 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Scottsdale Vertex™ (SCV) Petroleum Canopy Light Type : Page 2/6 Rev. 12/05/23 SPEC.1019.C.1222 1 Custom lumen and wattage packages available consult factory. Values are within industry standard tolerances but not DLC listed. 2 HV not available with REDiMount. 3 0-10 low voltage wired dimming not available with REDiMount. 4 IMSBT is field configurable via the LSI app that can be downloaded from your smartphone’s native app store. 5 HL not compatible with AirLink, IMSBT, 3000K, or REDiMount. 6 Light fixture engine ships with REDiMount attached. 7 Ideal for 9” to 12” openings. 8 Ideal for 9” openings. ORDERING GUIDE TYPICAL ORDER EXAMPLE: SCV LED 13L SC UNV DIM 50 WHT IMSBT2 REDI Prefix Light Source Lumen Package Distribution Voltage Driver Color Temperature Finish Options Mounting SCV - Petroleum Canopy Luminaire LED Custom Lumen Packages1 23L - 23,000 Lumens 10L - 10,000 Lumens 13L - 13,000 Lumens 15L - 15,000 Lumens 20L - 20,000 Lumens 23L - 23,000 Lumens SCFT - Combination Standard Symmetric and Forward Throw1 SC - Standard Symmetric UNV - Universal Voltage (120-277VAC) HV - 347-480V2 DIM - 0-10V Dimming2 30 - 3000K 40 - 4000K 50 - 5000K WHT - White BLK - Black BRZ - Bronze Blank - None ALBMR1 - AirLink Blue Wireless Multi Range Motion and Photo Sensor (8-15’ mounting height) ALBMR2 - AirLink Blue Wireless Multi Range Motion & Photo Sensor (16-40’ mounting height) IMSBT1L - Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor 8-24’ mounting height)3 IMSBT2L - Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor 25-40’ mounting height)3 HL - Hazardous Location Class 1 Div 2 Blank - None REDI - REDiMount integrated junction box system6 Need more information? Click here for our glossary Have additional questions? Call us at (800) 436-7800 ACCESSORY ORDERING INFORMATION Part Number Description 673425R2 Retrofit Panel Kit - EC / ECTA / SCF to SCV, for 16” Deck Panel with larger openings7 676011R2 Retrofit Panel Kit - EC / ECTA / SCF to SCV, for 12” Deck Panel8 673426R2 Retrofit Panel Kit - RECU Richmond to SCV 673427R2 Retrofit Panel Kit - UNV Universal 2x2 to SCV 357282 Retrofit 2x2 Cover Panel Blank (no holes) 354702 Retrofit RIC Cover Panel Blank (no holes) 557193WHT 26” X 26” Beauty Plate Kit (with 4” Center hole) 564160WHT 26” X 32” Beauty Plate Kit (with 4” Center hole) Part Number Description 687461 Junction Box 1320540 Kit - Hole Plugs and Sealant (enough for 25 retrofits) 678291R2WHT Rectangular Top Plate Kit (includes top plate and sealant) 673433R2 Surface Mount Box 687462R2 Retrofit Kit - CRU/CRUS to SCV 744333 Retrofit Kit for SCM/SCV to upgrade SC/SCF/EC/ECTA White 752172R2 Bracket SCM/SCV Direct Mount with Hardware LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Scottsdale Vertex™ (SCV) Petroleum Canopy Light Page 3/6 Rev. 12/05/23 SPEC.1019.C.1222 Type : PERFORMANCE LEDs are frequently updated therefore values are nominal. Electrical Data - Current draw in AMPS* Lumen Package Wattage 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V 10L 67 0.56 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.14 13L 90 0.75 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.26 0.19 15L 102 0.85 0.49 0.42 0.37 0.29 0.21 20L 133 1.1 0.64 0.55 0.48 0.38 0.28 23L (SC)155 1.29 0.75 0.65 0.56 0.45 0.32 23L (SCFT)188 1.57 0.9 0.78 0.68 0.54 0.39 Recommended Lumen Maintenance - SCV 15L SC1 Ambient Temperature °C Lumen Multiplier Initial2 25k hr2 50k hr2 75k hr3 100k hr3 25 102%97%92%88%84% 30 102%97%92%88%84% 35 102%97%92%88%84% 40 102%97%92%88%84% 45 101%95%91%86%81% 50 101%95%90%85%80% Recommended Lumen Maintenance - SCV 23 SC1 Ambient emperature °C Lumen Multiplier Initial2 25k hr2 50k hr2 75k hr3 100k hr3 25 102%97%92%88%84% 30 102%97%92%88%84% 35 102%97%92%88%84% 40 101%96%91%86%82% Recommended Lumen Maintenance - SCV 23 SCFT1 Ambient Temperature °C Lumen Multiplier Initial2 25k hr2 50k hr2 75k hr3 100k hr3 25 105%88%73%61%51% 30 105%80%61%47%36% 35 105%70%47%32%21% Delivered Lumens* Lumen Package 3000K CCT 4000K CCT 5000K CCT WattageDeliveredLumensEfficiencyBUGRatingsDeliveredLumensEfficiencyBUGRatingsDeliveredLumensEfficiencyBUGRatings 10L 9,652 144 B3-U0-G1 9,928 148 B3-U0-G1 10,317 154 B3-U0-G1 67 13L 12,567 140 B3-U0-G1 12,927 144 B3-U0-G1 13,443 149 B3-U0-G1 90 15L 13,999 137 B3-U0-G1 14,399 141 B3-U0-G1 14,963 147 B3-U0-G1 102 20L 18,755 141 B4-U0-G1 19,598 147 B4-U0-G1 20,234 152 B4-U0-G1 133 23L 21,783 141 B4-U0-G2 22,406 145 B4-U0-G2 23,284 150 B4-U0-G2 155 23L (SCFT)20,886 111 B3-U0-G3 23,187 123 B4-U0-G3 23,101 123 B3-U0-G3 188 1 Lumen maintenance values at 25 C are calculated per TM-21 based on LM-80 data and in-situ luminaire testing. 2 In accordance with IESNA TM-21-11, Projected Values represent interpolated value based on time durations that are within six times (6X) the IESNA LM-80-08 total test duration (in hours) for the device under testing ((DUT) i.e. the packaged LED chip). 3 In accordance with IESNA TM-21-11, Calculated Values represent time durations that exceed six times NA LM-80-08 total test duration (in hours) for the device under testing ((DUT) i.e. the packaged LED chip). Electrical data at 25 C (77F). Actual wattage may differ by +/-10%. LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Scottsdale Vertex™ (SCV) Petroleum Canopy Light Page 4/6 Rev. 12/05/23 SPEC.1019.C.1222 Type : PHOTOMETRICS Luminaire photometry has been conducted by a NVLAP accredited testing laboratory in accordance with IESNA LM-79-08. As specified by IESNA LM-79-08 the entire luminaire is tested as the source resulting in a luminaire efficiency of 100%. See the individual product page on https://www.lsicorp.com/ for detailed photometric data. SCV-LED-15L-SC-50 SCV-LED-23L-SCFT-50 Luminaire Data Wide Distribution Description 5000 Kelvin, 80 CRI Delivered Lumens 15,410 Watts 103 Efficacy 150 IES Type Type VS - Very Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 Luminaire Data Wide Distribution Description 5000 Kelvin, 80 CRI Delivered Lumens 24,361 Watts 191.5 Efficacy 127 IES Type Type IV - Short BUG Rating B3-U0-G3 Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30°)4,101.6 26.6% Medium (30-60°)8,386.4 54.4% High (60-80°)2,748.8 17.8% Very High (80-90°)173.4 1.1% Uplight (90-180°)0 0.0% Total Flux 15,410.2 100% Zonal Lumen Summary Zone Lumens % Luminaire Low (0-30°)4,368.4 17.9% Medium (30-60°)12,592.5 51.7% High (60-80°)6,960.6 28.6% Very High (80-90°)439.5 1.8% Uplight (90-180°)0 0.0% Total Flux 24,361.0 100% 15’ Mounting Height / 15’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve 1262 2524 3786 5048 15’ Mounting Height / 15’ Grid Spacing 5 FC 2 FC 1 FC 0.5 FC Vertical Plane Horizontal Cone ISO Footcandle Polar Curve 2754 5508 8261 11015 LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Scottsdale Vertex™ (SCV) Petroleum Canopy Light Page 5/6 Rev. 12/05/23 SPEC.1019.C.1222 Type : PRODUCT DIMENSIONS 15.9” (403mm) 2.6” 66mm) 2.0” (52mm) 0.7” 17mm) 2.0 51 mm) 8.3 211 mm) 4.0 101 mm) 6.00” 152mm) Gasket 3/4” NPS 13.5” 343mm) 13.5” 343mm) 8.2 207 mm)6.0 153 mm) Ø 0.875 0.5” TRADE SCFT Distribution IMSBTxL Option ALBMR Option REDiMount Direct Mount Accessory LSI Industries Inc. 10000 Alliance Rd. Cincinnati, OH 45242 • (513) 372-3200 • www.lsicorp.com LSI Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Speci cations and dimensions subject to industry standard tolerances. Speci cations subject to change without notice. Have questions? Call us at () - Scottsdale Vertex™ (SCV) Petroleum Canopy Light Page 6/6 Rev. 12/05/23 SPEC.1019.C.1222 Type : CONTROLS Integral Bluetooth™ Motion and Photocell Sensor (IMSBT1L, IMSBT2L) Slim low profile sensor provides multi-level control based on motion and/or daylight. Sensor controls 0-10 VDC LED drivers and is rated for cold and wet locations (-30° C to 70° C). Two unique PIR lenses are available and used based on fixture mounting height. All control parameters are adjustable via an iOS or Android App capable of storing and transmitting sensor profiles. Click here to learn more details about IMSBTxL AirLink Blue (ALMR1, ALBCS1, ALBCS2) Wireless Bluetooth Mesh Lighting Control System that provides energy savings, code compliance and enhanced safety/security. Three key components; Bluetooth wireless radio/sensor controller, Time Keeper and an App. Capable of grouping multiple fixtures and sensors as well as scheduling time-based events by zone. Radio/Sensor Controller is factory integrated into luminaires. Click here to learn more details about AirLink Blue LSI Industries offers a full line of Retrofit Kits for existing Encore, Richmond, 2x2 Universal and many more older canopy luminaires. Click here to learn more details on all our Retrofit Kits RETROFIT KITS MEMORANDUM To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board From: The Town of Ithaca Conservation Board - Environmental Review Committee Date: 01/24/2025 RE: Mirabito Energy Products Redevelopment In reviewing the site plans for the redevelopment by Mirabito Energy Products at 302 Pine Tree Road the Environmental Review Committee, we need to draw attention to the necessity to protect and preserve the eight largest trees on the site. These eight trees are what remains of a larger group of trees that provided a beautiful landscape surrounding a historic, red brick house, built in the Federal style, which stood on this site prior to development of East Hill Plaza more than 50 years ago. These eight trees are considered important enough for the site that they were deliberately kept alive while the house and the other trees were demolished. Through more recent developments near them, they have remained important enough for the site because of their age and size to carefully keep them. Why should we abandon that protection now, when earlier Planning Board decisions were made to save them? Further, if any of the numerous large trees on site are compromised, an improved landscape would include replacing them with native trees that mature to a similar size. It is essential we see specific details regarding what the numerous vegetation symbols on the maps represent including size and type of plant material. An improved landscape would need to be a collection of biologically diverse native plants. The Environmental Review Committee would like to see medium to large trees planted on the property to not only aid in the storm water management but to reduce the impact of the heat island effect that may increase as a result of the increased impervious surface area proposed. We note the current building on the properties along County Road 110/Ellis Hollow Road are set back with significant green space near the road. The redevelopment site plan places the building much closer to the road and active intersection. A re-development site plan that moves the building back and more importantly includes a significant shrub or tree vegetative buffer between the road would be safer and a significant shrub or tree vegetative buffer between the walkway and the sides of the building would be an attractive asset. This “pocket park” approach would offer a respite for those using the nearby Pine Tree Road trail and East Hill Recreation Way. In your stormwater management design a rain garden or bioswale will also contribute to an improved landscape. Details on vegetated swales, rain gardens, native plant lists as well as critical planning, management and maintenance details can be found in the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html). Below we reference research studies on the impacts of lighting on insects. Your choice of dimmable LED lights is good because it provides the option to dim your lights at certain times to be less disruptive to insects. Note that insects are highly attracted to lights with color temperature 3500K. Please choose warmer, more yellow colors as these tend to be less attractive to insects. Please send us the applicant’s detailed improved landscaping plan. Respectfully submitted Lori Brewer Eva Hoffmann Frank Cantone Lindsay Dombroskie James Hamilton Ingrid Zabel Boyes, D. H., Evans, D. M., Fox, R., Parsons, M. S. & Pocock, M. J. O. Is light pollution driving moth population declines? A review of causal mechanisms across the life cycle. Insect Conservation and Diversity 14, 167–187 (2021). https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/icad.12447 Deichmann, J. L. et al. Reducing the blue spectrum of artificial light at night minimizes insect attraction in a tropical lowland forest. Insect Conservation and Diversity 14, 247–259 (2021). https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/icad.12479 COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 | Phone: (607) 274-5560 | tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. January 31, 2025 Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Subdivision and Site Plan for proposed Mirabito at East Hill Plaza located at 301 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel #s 62.-2-1.121, 62.-2-1.13, and 62.-2-1.22, Cornell University, Owner; Napierala Consulting, Applicant. Dear Ms. Balestra: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability PROJECTLOCATION MAPC- 0SITE PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: COPYRIGHT C 2024 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. NAPIERALA CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, PC MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 GENERAL NOTES 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 AS SHOWN C-1 PRELIMINARYFOR PLANN ING REV IEW ONLYGRADING NOTESLEGENDGENERAL NOTESUTILITY NOTESEVREVISIONS PER TOWNENGINEERING / COUNTY COMMENTS 06/02/231 LANDSCAPE NOTESREVISIONSPER PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: COPYRIGHT C 2024 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. NAPIERALA CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, PC MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 PROPERTY SURVEY 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 AS SHOWN C-2 PRELIMINARYFOR PLANN ING REV IEW ONLY REVISIONS PER TOWN ENGINEERING / COUNTYCOMMENTS 06/02/231 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODESCOMMENTS PROJECT NO.DATESCALESHEETMATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:COPYRIGHT C 2024NO.REVISION/ISSUESHEET TITLE:DATEPREPARED FOR: PROJECT nnnnnnnnnnEVEVEVEVnnnnnnnnnnnnnn n n n n n nnnnnnnnEVEVEVEVPROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: COPYRIGHT C 2024 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. NAPIERALA CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, PC MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 LAYOUT PLAN 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 1" = 20' C-3 PRELIMINARYFOR PLANN ING REV IEW ONLY REVISIONS PER TOWN ENGINEERING / COUNTYCOMMENTS 06/02/231 REVISIONS PER OWNERCOMMENTS 06/14/232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNERCOMMENTS 05/07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 07/24/23 4 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 08/30/23 GENERALREVISIONS 11/21/246 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODESCOMMENTS nnnnnnnnnnEVEVEVEVnnnnnnnnnnnnnn n n n n n nnnnnnnnPROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: COPYRIGHT C 2024 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. NAPIERALA CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, PC MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 GRADING PLAN 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 AS SHOWN C-4 PRELIMINARYFOR PLANN ING REV IEW ONLYNORTHERLY ELLIS HOLLOW ROADSTORMWATER UTILITY CONNECTIONOVERALL GRADING LAYOUTREVISIONS PER TOWN ENGINEERING / COUNTYCOMMENTS 06/02/231 REVISIONS PER OWNER COMMENTS 06/14/ 232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNER COMMENTS 05/ 07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 07/ 24/23 4 RECONFIGUREDRIVE THRU AREA 08/30/23 GENERAL REVISIONS 11/21/ n n n n n n n n n n EVEVEV EV n n n nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnPROJECT NO.DATESCALESHEETMATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:COPYRIGHT C 2024NO.REVISION/ISSUESHEET TITLE:DATEPREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE:110 FAYETTE STREETMANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104email: MNAP@NAPCON.COMPH: ( n n n n n n n n n n EVEVEV EV n n n nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnPROJECT NO.DATESCALESHEETMATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:COPYRIGHT C 2024NO.REVISION/ISSUESHEET TITLE:DATEPREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE:110 FAYETTE STREETMANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104email: MNAP@NAPCON.COMPH: ( n n n n n n n n n n EVEVEV EV n n n nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnPROJECT NO.DATESCALESHEETMATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:COPYRIGHT C 2024NO.REVISION/ISSUESHEET TITLE:DATEPREPARED FOR: n n n n n n n n n n EVEVEV EV n n n nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnPROJECT NO.DATESCALESHEETMATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:COPYRIGHT C 2024NO.REVISION/ISSUESHEET TITLE:DATEPREPARED FOR: INTEGRAL CURB AND SIDEWALKSIDEWALKACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNSCONCRETE PIPE BOLLARDLIGHT POLE BASELIGHT POLE ELEVATIONEDGE OF PAVEMENT WITHOUT CURBINGACCESSIBLE PARKING PAVEMENT MARKING BREAK- AWAY SIGN POSTNOPARKINGANYTIMETIMBER GUIDE RAILCONCRETE CURBSTANDARD/ HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT SECTIONHEAVY DUTYSTANDARD DUTYPROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P. E.NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:NAPIERALA CONSULTING COPYRIGHT C 2023 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR:PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: ( 315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682- 5544 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY.ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS.PROFESSIONALENGINEER, P.C.N A P I E RA L A C O N S U L T I N G SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING REVISIONS PER OWNER COMMENTS 06/14/ 232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNER COMMENTS05/07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 07/24/23 4 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 08/ 30/23 GENERAL REVISIONS 11/21/ 246 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODES COMMENTS 01/ 14/ 257 MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OFITHACATOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 DUMPSTER PAD AND ENCLOSURETYPICAL SEWER AND DRAIN TRENCHTYPICAL SEWER CLEANOUTCAST IRON VENT AND TRAP1000 GALLON GREASE TRAPPROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY:PREPARED BY:NAPIERALA CONSULTING COPYRIGHT C 2023 NO. REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE:DATE PREPARED FOR:PROJECT TITLE:110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: ( 315) 682-5544 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT,PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY.ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS.PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C.N A P I E R A L A C O NS U L T I N G SITE DESIGNENGINEERING REVISIONS PER OWNER COMMENTS 06/14/232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNER COMMENTS 05/07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRUAREA 07/24/23 4 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRUAREA 08/30/23 GENERAL REVISIONS 11/21/ 246 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODES COMMENTS 01/14/257 MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P. O. BOX5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 DETAILS 20-1890 05 MAY2023 PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: NAPIERALA CONSULTING COPYRIGHT C 2023 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING REVISIONS PER OWNER COMMENTS 06/14/232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNER COMMENTS 05/07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 07/24/23 4 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 08/30/23 GENERAL REVISIONS 11/21/246 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODES COMMENTS 01/14/257 MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 DETAILS 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 AS SHOWN C-11 PRELIMINARYFORCONCEPT REV IEW ONLYBIORETENTION FILTER CROSS SECTIONSBIORETENTION FILTER SPECIESTREEPLANTING PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: NAPIERALA CONSULTING COPYRIGHT C 2023 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING REVISIONS PER OWNER COMMENTS 06/14/232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNER COMMENTS 05/07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 07/24/23 4 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 08/30/23 GENERAL REVISIONS 11/21/246 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODES COMMENTS 01/14/257 MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 DETAILS 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 AS SHOWN C-12 PRELIMINARYFORCONCEPT REV IEW ONLYSTORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBER CROSS SECTION, TYP. PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: NAPIERALA CONSULTING COPYRIGHT C 2023 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING REVISIONS PER OWNER COMMENTS 06/14/232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNER COMMENTS 05/07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 07/24/23 4 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 08/30/23 GENERAL REVISIONS 11/21/246 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODES COMMENTS 01/14/257 MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 DETAILS 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 AS SHOWN C-13 PRELIMINARYFORCONCEPT REV IEW ONLYDUCTILE IRONDO NOT POLLUTE DRAINS TO WATERWAYSNYLOPLASTADS PARTNUMBER 1299CGPAPPROX. DRAIN AREA = 50.60 SQ INAPPROX. WEIGHT WITH FRAME = 35. PROJECT NO. DATE SCALE SHEET MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA, P.E. NYS REGISTRATION # 068733 PLAN SEAL BY: PREPARED BY: NAPIERALA CONSULTING COPYRIGHT C 2023 NO.REVISION/ISSUE SHEET TITLE: DATE PREPARED FOR: PROJECT TITLE: 110 FAYETTE STREET MANLIUS, NEW YORK 13104 email: MNAP@NAPCON.COM PH: (315) 682-5580 FAX: (315) 682-5544 IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED ARCHITECT, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OR LAND SURVEYOR TO ALTER ANY ITEM ON THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY. ANY LICENSEE WHO ALTERS THIS DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO AFFIX HIS OR HER SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY HIS OR HER SIGNATURE AND SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATIONS. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, P.C. N A P I E R A L A C O N S U L T I N G SITE DESIGN ENGINEERING REVISIONS PER OWNER COMMENTS 06/14/232 REVISIONS PER TOWN AND OWNER COMMENTS 05/07/245 3 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 07/24/23 4 RECONFIGURE DRIVE THRU AREA 08/30/23 GENERAL REVISIONS 11/21/246 REVISIONS PER TOWN CODES COMMENTS 01/14/257 MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS 301 PINE TREE ROAD TOWN OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY, NY MIRABITO ENERGY PRODUCTS THE METRO CENTER - 49 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 5306 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902 DETAILS 20-1890 05 MAY 2023 AS SHOWN C-14 PRELIMINARYFORCONCEPT REV IEW ONLYCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCECONCRETE WASHOUT AREAINLET PROTECTION - VARIATIONSSILTFENCEEROSION A-102 3 A-102 1 A-102 4 A-102 2 68' - 0"32' - 0" 100' - 0" 60' - 0"1 A- 1032 A-10313' - 9"CONVENIENCE CENTERW/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACA NY 02/06/ 2025A-101SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"A-101 1FLOOR PLAN 0'SCALE: 1/ 8" = 1'-0"2' 4' 16'8' 20' - 0" STEF MP ROOFTOPRTU 24' - 0" 16' - 0" 11' - 2" 20' - 0" 16' - 0" MP ROOFTOPRTU 20' - 0" MP MP ST MP ROOF TOP RTU MP ST EF 20' - 0" 11' - 2"11' - 2" MP ST EF MP MP STEF 20' - 0" STEF MP MP ROOF TOPRTUROOFTOPRTU CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-102 0' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 2'-8"10'-8"5'-4" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"A-102 3WESTELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"A-102 2SOUTHELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"A-102 1NORTHELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"A-102 4 EAST ELEVATION ST = CULTURED VENEER STONE BY ELDERADO STONE STACKED STONE: CHAPEL HILL EF =EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM BY DRYVIT, CHINA WHITE, SANDBLAST TEXTURED MP = METAL PANEL BY ATAS METAL PANELS: DESIGN WALL - BONE WHITE 14' - 0" 16' - 0" 14' - 0" 11' - 2" 20' - 0" 10' - 0" 24' - 0" 10' - 0" 20' - 0" 14' - 0" 10' - 0" 24' - 0" 20' - 0"15' - 2 1/2"CONVENIENCE CENTER W/ FUELMIRABITO, ITHACA NY 02/06/2025 A-103SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A-1031BUILDING SECTION 1 0'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1'2' 8'4'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" A-1032BUILDING 5' - 4"12' - 0"6' - 8"14' - 0"26' - 6" 26' - 6" 26' - 6" 12' - 6"24' - 0"106' - 0"A- 104 4 A-104316' - 0"20' - 3"2' - 8"16' - 0"20' - 3"CONVENIENCE CENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACA NY 02/06/2025 A-104 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A- 1041PUMPSTATION FLOOR PLAN SCALE:A-1042AXONOF PUMP STATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A-104 3PUMPSTATION LONG ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-105 CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-106 SCALE:A-106 1AXON - TOP CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-107 CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-108 CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-111 CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-113 CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-114 CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-115 CONVENIENCECENTER W/ FUEL MIRABITO, ITHACANY 02/06/2025 A-116 PB 2024-12-17 (Filed 2/2) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD December 17, 2024 Draft Minutes Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Gary Stewart, Kelda McGurk, and Sara Reynolds Staff: CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O’Shea, Director of Engineering; Justin McNeal, Engineer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Dana Magnason, Senior Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:30p.m. 1. Persons to be heard. Several members of the public spoke to thank Fred Wilcox for his years of service. Several members of the public attending the meeting in person spoke regarding the proposed Verizon cell phone tower on Wiedmaier Court. They wanted the Planning Board to reconsider the previous vote regarding the tower. Regi Teasley spoke regarding the dangers of artificial turf and urged the Planning Board to reject projects containing artificial fields. Louise Mygatt spoke regarding the negative impact of artificial turf on the groundwater, specifically, microplastics that could make their way into groundwater. Yayoi Koizumi against artificial turf. She would like the Planning Board to issue a positive declaration of environmental significance for Cornell’s proposed installation of a synthetic turf field on Game Farm Road. bethany ojalehto mays spoke against a synthetic turf field on the Meinig Field House. She would like the Planning Board to get answers from the applicant for previously raised questions by Planning Board members during the first phase of the project. She also argued that Mening Field House and the new field hockey field on Game Farm Road are a single project, not two distinct projects. Daniel Swanson spoke regarding the pollution and health impacts of approving the Game Farm Road artificial turf project. David (no last name available) spoke about the Verizon cell tower project. He argued that small cell antennas would solve the cell coverage issue. Andrew Molnar spoke via Zoom. He would like the Planning Board to reconsider and redo the vote on the Verizon cell phone tower. He would also like William Johnson to be replaced as the Town’s independent consultant and Richard Comey to be hired as a replacement. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion made by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant to approve the minutes of October 1, 2024; unanimous. Motion made by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant to approve the minutes of October 15, 2024; unanimous. 3. Other Business The Board discussed the comments regarding the credibility of the Town’s independent consultant, William Johnson. Ms. Brock addressed a letter that was addressed to Town Planning Staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals by Mr. Babjak, which the Planning Board had not seen as it was not addressed to them. Planning staff clarified that the Planning Board only receives correspondence if it is addressed to the Planning Board. PB 2024-12-17 (Filed 2/2) Pg. 2 Mr. Babjak alleged Mr. Johnson has a conflict of interest based upon information he found on Mr. Johnson’s LinkedIn page where Jared Lusk, Verizon’s Attorney, made a complimentary comment about Mr. Johnson, and that proves a conflict of interest is present. Ms. Brock stated that in her opinion, that is not a legal conflict of interest, nor does it show any bias. She described another court case in which Mr. Johnson, acting as independent consultant, had caused a cell tower to be denied. She believes that he looks at each case individually and does not see any bias favor of the cell tower applicant in this case. Planning staff indicated that the next Planning Board meeting is January 7, 2025, in which a Vice Chair will need to be elected and the 2025 meeting schedule will be established. Also on the agenda is the Planning Board officially establishing themselves as lead agency in the environmental review of the Cornell Game Farm Road field hockey project. 4. SEQR Determination: Maplewood Phase II Project – Maple Avenue. Ms. Brock began this agenda item by explaining to the board and the public that a vote on SEQR comes before any public comment because that is the order mandated by the Town Code. Presentation by Michelle Palmer of Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent. Presentation is in the packet, available publicly on the Town’s website. Mr. Wilcox was concerned about the crosswalk at the five-corner intersection at the top of the hill which may be brought up during site plan review and Ms. Balestra noted that the intersection is located in the City of Ithaca. The Engineering Department saw no issue with water and sewer service to the project. Code Enforcement staff received new calculations for water flow for fire protection systems, which have yet to be reviewed. Mr. Wilcox was adamant that all staging for the construction of the project be contained to the project site itself, including contractor parking and material storage. Ms. Cameron had concerns about swapping the stone to fiber cement and the durability of the replacement material and the applicant responded that it has a 30–40-year life span and the buildings have a minimum 50-year life span. The ground lease is for 75 years, so the expected life of the buildings is at least 75 years. The Board reviewed the SEQR forms and reiterated concerns about the impact of the project on the five corners intersection and increased use of the area in general. Ms. Randall said that this can be discussed further during the site plan review process. PB RESOLUTION 2024-024: SEQR Maplewood Phase II Project Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, and 63.-2-7.3 Town of Ithaca Planning Board December 17, 2024 Whereas: 1. This is consideration of a Determination of Environmental Significance for the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High-Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing 615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent, 2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and a rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Parts 617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii), respectively, as well as Town of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Code section 148-5B(2) as the project as proposed involves a zoning change and PB 2024-12-17 (Filed 2/2) Pg. 3 the construction of 250 or more residential units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems, 3. The Planning Board, at its meeting on August 6, 2024, proposed to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the project, and on August 7, 2024, notified potential Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead Agency, 4. The Planning Board, at its meeting on September 17, 2024, established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the project, after having received no objections from other involved agencies, 5. The Planning Board, at its meeting on December 17, 2024, has reviewed application materials, studies, and a narrative plan set dated 07-19-2024, titled “Maplewood Phase II Preliminary Site Plan Submission,” submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; supplemental materials and drawings dated 08-26-2024, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; revised materials and drawings, dated 11-15-24, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; additional materials and drawings, dated 12-9-24, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; revised draft PDZ rezoning language labeled for 12-17-24 PB meeting; a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, prepared by the applicant; and a completed FEAF Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed project; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the Maplewood Phase II development project, based on the information in the FEAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the FEAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Moved: Liz Bageant Seconded: Cindy Kaufman Vote: Ayes- Wilcox, Cameron, Arms, Stewart, Reynolds, Bageant, and Kaufman 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Proposed Rezoning for the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing 615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. The board discussed the proposed PDZ language, and the minor details of application information supplied regarding the project. PB Resolution 2024-025: Recommendation to the Town Board Proposed Planned Development Zone – Maplewood Phase II Project Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, and 63.-2-7.3 Town of Ithaca Planning Board December 17, 2024 Whereas: 1. This is consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding the Proposed Rezoning for the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, PB 2024-12-17 (Filed 2/2) Pg. 4 containing 615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent, 2. The Maplewood Phase II development project has been determined to be consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan, which included the project site in the “TND High Density” category, intending the area for a mix of higher density housing types “built to create an intentional neighborhood with linkages and proximity to services, employment, public transit, and recreational areas,” 3. The consultant team drafted language for a Maplewood II Planned Development Zone (PDZ) that utilizes a form-based code approach to guide and regulate the form of the development, following the formatting and language used in the Maplewood Graduate and Professional Student Housing Redevelopment Project PDZ (PDZ No. 16), 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee reviewed the draft Maplewood Phase II PDZ language at their meetings on June 20, 2024, July 18, 2024, August 15, 2024, and September 16, 2024, and referred the draft language to the Town Board for referral to the Planning Board, 5. The consultant team, along with Greystar, a developer/owner/manager of collegiate housing, presented the development proposal and draft PDZ to the Town Board on October 7, 2024, where the Town Board, via resolution, then referred the draft PDZ to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation, and 6. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on December 17, 2024, has reviewed, discussed, and considered the draft Maplewood Phase II PDZ language; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved: That, per Town Code §270-181 (F), the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Ithaca Town Board adopt a local law creating a Planned Development Zone for the Maplewood Phase II Project, with the recommended changes outlined in the draft document titled “Draft Maplewood II PDZ- for 12-17-24 Planning Board meeting.” Moved: Fred Wilcox Seconded: Sara Reynolds Vote: Ayes: Fred Wilcox, Caitlin Cameron, Cindy Kaufman, Bill Arms, Gary Stewart, Liz Bageant, and Sara Reynolds 6. Presentation and Update on the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the existing grass practice field into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot rest room/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent. A presentation was given by Kimberly Michaels and Alicia Farner from Fisher Associates along with Cornell Planner Leslie Schill, Athletics Director Nikki Moore and Assistant Athletic director Matt Coates. Presentation is in the packet, which is available on the Town’s website. Board questions and discussion regarding potential noise and lights emanating from the proposed fields. Discussion about NCAA regulations regarding synthetic turf and field hockey fields. Applicant asserted that synthetic surface is required. Turf will have the carpet and no infill and must be wet on game day. This is why there is a 10,000 gallon water tank on site. Discussion whether the Ivy League must adhere to NCAA standards and why field hockey cannot be played elsewhere, e.g., Schoellkopf Field. It was indicated that Cornell athletics is a member of both NCAA and the Ivy league. Schoellkopf Field is not PB 2024-12-17 (Filed 2/2) Pg. 5 suited to field hockey due to size and level of the field. If the field is not built on the proposed site it will have to be built on another site. There is not another field hockey field within an hour of Cornell available. Questions were asked regarding the future of synthetic turf in sports and potential impact to the environment. The applicant response was that Cornell wants to be as forward-thinking and sustainable as possible with the project. It will comply with the New York State Code. The project includes a water filtration system that will capture most particles before reaching the water table. They are also working with manufacturers to make a better synthetic turf product to minimize impact on the environment. Discussion on the ongoing Article 78 regarding the other synthetic turf field project at Cornell (Meinig Fieldhouse). No stop work order has been issued and Ms. Brock has requested that the response from Cornell to the claims levied against Cornell and the lead agency the City of Ithaca on the project be made public record for this project. This is to help the Planning Board evaluate the SEQR review for this project. The Town is researching the NCAA standards for the field hockey surface requirements. 7. Consider approval of the 2025 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. Motion by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Liz Bageant to approve the revised meeting schedule for 2025; unanimous. 8. Consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2025. Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Liz Bageant, to recommend Caitlin Cameron as Chair for 2025; unanimous The meeting was adjourned at 9:46pm upon a motion by Ms. Cameron, seconded by Mr. Wilcox, unanimous. Submitted by, Monica Moll, Deputy Town Clerk PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD January 7, 2025 Draft Minutes Present: Caitlin Cameron, Chair Pro Tem; Cindy Kaufman, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Kelda McGurk, and Sara Reynolds CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O’Shea, Director of Engineering; Justin McNeal, Engineer; Dana Magnason, Senior Code Officer Caitlin Cameron opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Board made a motion to appoint a Planning Board Chair pro tem. Moved: Liz Bageant Seconded: Bill Arms Vote: Ayes: Caitlin Cameron, Cindy Kaufman, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Kelda McGurk, and Sara Reynolds 1. Persons to be heard. The first person to be heard would like the vote for the Verizon cell phone tower located on Weidmaier Court to be revisited. This person argued that false information, conflict of interest and lack of public input should prompt a revote. Nikki Moore, the Director of Athletics and Physical Education at Cornell University. She spoke regarding the Game Farm Road Field Hockey field project at Cornell. She cited the history of women’s field hockey and the exemplary performance of the athletes over the history of the sport. She would like the board to approve the artificial turf field. She stated the turf field is environmentally friendly, relocates an existing field onto already developed land, and will comply with NCAA standards. The field will comply with all New York State standards. She emphasized Cornell’s mission of excellence and their commitment for Ithaca to be a desirable place where any person can live, work and play. Bob Babjak, saying that he would like to reopen and have a revote on the Verizon cell phone tower on Weidmaier court. He would like the Planning Board to consider small cells/micro cells in lieu of a tower. He cited the Town Code regarding wireless service facilities and that these personal wireless facilities must be the least intrusive means to cover any coverage gaps. He stated that Verizon never provided hard evidence that these small cells would not work in this situation. He also stated that Bill Johnson, the Town’s independent consultant, stated on October 28th during the Planning Board meeting that small cells are a technically viable option. He also argued that there was bias in favor of the cell tower from Planning Board Chair Fred Wilcox. Considering all this evidence, he would like a revote on the cell tower and consideration of small cells option to fill the coverage gap. PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 2 Wendy Ives spoke, saying that she would like to preserve the beauty of the area and feels that more cell towers are not necessary and will ruin the beauty of the area. She has never had a problem with cell coverage in her experience. She feels a new cell tower is extraneous and has dangerous health effects as well as ruining the beauty of the area. Yayoi Koizumi spoke, raising concerns about the synthetic turf field projects that are ongoing at Cornell University. She claims there is a lack of transparency, questionable recycling claims and potential conflict of interest in the decision making process. She claims she has reliable information that the old field hockey synthetic turf field that was removed on Tower Road is currently being stored in Wellsville, New York. It has been there for over a month and there is no transparency on when the turf will be recycled. Also, the recycling facilities are in states like California and North Carolina. This raises concerns that this turf may be sent to unverifiable facilities in other states and will eventually end up in landfills or abandoned not recycled. She would like Cornell to disclose full contact and contract details of any company contracted to recycle these turf fields at the end of life. She would like transparency in the recycling process to ensure these fields do get recycled in an environmentally friendly manner. Koizumi also raised concerns about the relationship between City of Ithaca Planning Board Chair and the architectural firm representing Cornell. She feels this relationship raises questions about the impartiality of the environmental review process for the Meinig Fieldhouse project. She would like the Town Board to take immediate action to investigate the storage, handling and end-of-life practices of Cornell’s synthetic turf fields. Caroline spoke, referencing her email to the Planning Board asking the Planning Board to revote on the Verizon Cell phone tower project on Wiedmaier Court. She stated that the Planning Board needs to regain confidence from the public because of past problematic behaviors and comments. She also spoke regarding the synthetic turf field project. She stated that there have been numerous studies and the dangers of PFAS. She also referenced materials previously supplied by Yayoi Koizumi to the board regarding reproductive health issues with PFAS particles from synthetic turf fields. She would like the Planning Board to consider alternative options to a synthetic turn field. Bethany Ojalehto Mays spoke, saying that she believes that the Planning Board should discuss the question of inappropriate SEQR segmentation to divide the Meinig Fieldhouse project from the Game Farm Road project. She believes that these projects should be considered together, as the destruction of the women’s field hockey field and subsequent relocation to Game Farm Road is a direct result of the Meinig Fieldhouse project. Therefore, these two projects should be considered together under a unified SEQR assessment. She believes that we should not trade short term human values against the environment. Daniel Seib spoke, saying he would like the Planning Board to hold a revote on the Verizon cell tower. He believes it impacts the character of the neighborhood and is not the least intrusive means to do this. He believes Verizon will rent out space on the tower and eventually make it larger. He also believes that it will lower property values. He has Verizon service and has no issue with coverage. He believes a smaller tower would suffice. PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 3 Louise Mygatt spoke against the synthetic turf fields on Cornell campus, as a source of microplastic pollution and uphill from the City of Ithaca water supply will cause environmental problems. She alluded to her email to the Planning Board regarding study examples of this concern. She believes Cornell is ignoring all the scientific evidence on the dangers of synthetic turf fields. She believes Cornell is acting in contrary to their own sustainability statement. She believes filtrations systems are superficial solutions that fail to address the full extent of the pollution and harm these fields create. She would like the Planning Board to deny Cornell’s proposal for the Women’s Field hockey field on Game Farm Road. Natalie Lester spoke via Zoom. She spoke against the Verizon cell phone tower. She believes this tower would have a devastating impact on people, plants and wildlife in the surrounding area. She feels that this tower impedes citizens’ basic rights to their own health. Brian Eden spoke via Zoom. He cited his history of various work with other examples of environmentally hazardous projects in the area. He explained the hazards of PFAS chemicals in the air soil and water. He stated cleanup of hazardous sites are never completely clean. They are just clean enough for the downstream use of the site. He is astounded that people think replacing natural vegetation with plastic is a good idea. Andrew Molinar spoke via Zoom. He spoke about US military research regarding the health dangers of microwave radiation from cell towers. He stated that it was immoral and outrageous that the 1996 Telecommunications Act made it illegal for any town to deny a tower based on environmental or health reasons. He stated that the control was taken out of local hands due to the elevation of greed over human health. The World Health Organization places this type of radiation in the same category of carcinogen as DDT. He urged the Planning Board to stick to their original instincts to deny this cell phone tower on Weidmaier Court. He would like the Planning Board to revote this issue. Andy Smith spoke via Zoom. He is the head field hockey coach at Cornell. He spoke in favor of the synthetic turf fields at Cornell. These fields support the mental and physical well-being of his student athletes. He wants to support and protect the future of the program. He has students that have committed to playing field hockey and this new first class field would be massive step for gender equality in the area of women’s sports. This is the first stand alone facility for a female sport. He believes the facility will promote success in the Cornell Program and also promote the sport in the wider community. He stated that in 2023 no Division 1 field hockey teams played or trained on a grass field. Out of the 82 teams in the division, those who played on non-watered infield surfaces were ranked 70, 71, 72, 75, 77, and 80. Cornell is ranked 16. This new field is directly replacing a field that has been in place for the last 16 years. This new field is better for the environment and students than the old one. Marie spoke via Zoom. She would like the Board to consider a revote on the Weidmaier Court Verizon cell phone tower. She stated that the approval of the application was made by the Planning Board without full clarity in understanding of the process regarding the effective prohibition of the project. For effective prohibition two conditions must be met. The first is a significant gap in coverage and the second that this tower is the lease intrusive means of remedying that gap in coverage. After going through all the papers, she has not seen any proof or data that this tower is the least intrusive means. She has specifically not seen the applicant look PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 4 into small cells as an option to remedy this gap. She asked the Planning Board members if they feel like they have done their due diligence to ensure with confidence that this 138 foot tower is truly the lest intrusive means to remedy the gap in service. She believes there is a lot of confusion and incomplete information around this issue. Kelly Hook spoke via Zoom. He pointed out that no one has come to this meeting and spoke in favor of the Verizon cell phone tower. He believes this is a large project that Verizon is asking the Planning Board to approve. He believes that Verizon has not provided evidence for a really strong need for this tower. He would like the Planning Board to consider that Verizon has not brought a strong case in favor of this project. The Planning Board clarified the point brought up during comments regarding SEQR segmentation of the Meinig Fieldhouse project. It was the City of Ithaca that decided to segment the SEQR for both artificial turf projects. Ms. Brock also explained that New York State Town Law does not have a specific provision about reconsideration of a vote for Planning Boards. There is some case law she could research regarding reconsideration if an applicant misrepresented information. There may be ramifications of reconsideration because of the federally mandated shot clock associated with the cell tower project. The Planning Board requested a memo from Ms. Brock regarding this issue to get clarity for themselves and the public in the reconsideration of the Verizon cell phone tower vote. 2. Consider establishing the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency in the environmental review for the Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the existing grass practice field into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot rest room/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. The Planning Board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the project at their November 19, 2024, meeting. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent. PB Resolution 2025-02: SEQR – Establish Lead Agency Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4, 62.-2-5, 62.-2-6 Game Farm Road PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 5 Town of Ithaca Planning Board January 7, 2025 Whereas: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on November 19, 2024, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields at the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex (also referenced as the Ellis Hollow Athletic Complex). The proposal involves constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the existing natural grass practice field (McGovern Field 3) into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway, formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge, toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent; 2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Planning Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves an activity, other than the construction of residential facilities, that involves the physical alteration of 10 acres (6 NYCRR 617.4 (b) (6) (i)), and parking for 100 vehicles (Town Code 148-5.C (3)); and 3. At its meeting on November 19, 2024, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board proposed to establish itself as the Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- referenced proposal. Potential Involved and Interested agencies were notified of its intent to serve as Lead Agency on November 20, 2024; 4. The Planning Board, on November 19, 2024, accepted a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, along with a report containing a narrative and studies titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, Site Plan Review Application Report,” dated October 3, 2024, prepared by Fisher Associates, drawings titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field, Cornell University,” dated 09-27-2024, prepared by Sasaki, and other materials; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- described proposal. Moved: Sara Reynolds Seconded: Liz Bageant PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 6 Vote: Ayes: Sara Reynolds, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Kelda McGurk, Caitlin Cameron Discussion: Ms. Cameron raised questions about the increase in surface water on the applicant’s SEQR form. Applicant responded that the increased surface water will result from the storm water system’s retention pond. An additional question was raised with regards to agricultural lands present, but no acreage was indicated. Mr. Arms questioned whether the Planning Board needed a full environmental review on the project. Is this because the project uses artificial turf and the water runoff resulting from the field may need a more in-depth review? The Board discussed the environmental review options for the project, whether the review should include the overall general area or just the site in question. Planning staff indicated that it would be difficult without a master plan for the entire area. Ms. Balestra said that the Planning Board could do a review of the entire property in a generic environmental impact statement. It would not be site specific and would contain thresholds and general conceptual plans. Staff are not suggesting this as an option, and more guidance from Susan Brock is needed to see if this is a viable option within the confines of the application. Ms. Brock stated that if the Board reads the SEQR regulation that talks about environmental impact statements, it will give the Board more clarity. The regulation states that a generic environmental impact statement can be broader and more general than a site or project specific environmental impact statement. They can be based on conceptualized information and may identify the important elements of the natural resource base. They can be used to assess the environmental impacts of a number of separate actions in a given geographic area which may be minor if considered singly but significant if considered together. Liz Bageant liked the idea of looking at the site as a whole and considering a generic environmental impact statement. She is concerned that in the future if more synthetic turf fields are proposed on the site, there may be a larger environmental impact than approval of the fields one at a time. In order to begin the process of a generic environmental impact on the whole site, a resolution would be needed. Susan Brock will need to explore the validity of a generic environmental impact statement with regard to this project. The applicant responded that this proposal is only for one synthetic field to be added to the site. There are no plans for future synthetic fields than the one that currently exists (baseball field), the one proposed, and one more that may be proposed in the future to replace the existing synthetic turf softball field on Pine Tree Road. Chris Balestra directed the board to NYS SEQR regulations online regarding the determination of significance in SEQR actions. She mentioned that this project is a Type 1 action. Both existing synthetic turf fields (the softball field is not on the same property) did undergo SEQR reviews through the Planning Board in the past. Discussion ensued about plans changing on the applicant’s side. This field hockey field proposal is an example of plans changing on the Meinig Fieldhouse site. Bageant would like to think more broadly about the entire site rather than just a small portion this field would take up on the property to see what the limits are in terms of the use of the property for athletic fields. CJ Randall explained that the SEQR handbook does speak to uncertainty in future projects on the PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 7 site. Ms. Randall believes that it would be advantageous to both the Town and the applicant to have an overall scope of the project for future developments on the site. Staff asked the board what kinds of information the Planning Board would like to make an environmental determination on the project. What type of studies would they like to be done? Do they want to utilize a consultant regarding the conflicting scientific information around synthetic turf? Site specific elements staff will have concerns about in the environmental review are noise and lighting and the potential impact these elements will have on neighboring properties. Staff currently have materials related to these issues and will not need further information at this point. But staff has heard concerns from the board regarding the toxicity of synthetic turf. Ms. Cameron asked the board what further information other board members will require. Ms. Bageant suggested that the board review SEQR regulations, Section 617.7, to assist the board to determine significance as to whether the project should require an environmental impact statement. Mr. Arms raised an issue about surface water quality and the creation of human health hazards. Both items are under the C1 section in the SEQR Full EAF. Ms. Brock indicated that a positive declaration from the board would be based on information the board receives on the record during a public meeting. Ms. Bageant would like an impartial understanding of the potential water quality and health effects from synthetic turf. Ms. Reynolds would like to know the specific manufacturer of the turf field and product specifications. The applicant indicated that they are still deciding which product will be chosen. Ms. Bageant requested a third-party interpretation of the data provided from the turf manufacturer. Ms. Cameron requested more information about the storm water system and materials being used in the filtration of the stormwater runoff. Town Engineer, David O’Shea explained that the turf field is categorized as impervious surface, but the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) review does not look at PFAS and its regulation. Ms. Balestra summarized the Planning Board’s request for more information to make a SEQR determination. The board wants to see: 1. Cornell’s responses to the Article 78 lawsuit from the Meinig Fieldhouse project, as discussed at the 12/17/24 Planning Board meeting. 2. Documents from the Applicant that show the actual turf materials, product manufacturer specifications of proposed turf materials, chemical makeup of each component of each turf material (including, but not limited to PFAS), and analysis of how the materials will breakdown and released over time. 3. Third party interpretation of the documents in #2, and manufacturer information provided request that the third party is not affiliated with Cornell/Applicant or the public that has commented on the topic). Staff will search for this third party and report back to the board. 4. Understanding from the Applicant of how the project will impact the stormwater infiltration system for anything not covered in the SWPPP. What does the field produce in sizes and concentrations, and what can actually be treated? Microplastics? PFAS? Other materials in the product list? PB 2025-01-07 (Filed 2/1) Pg. 8 5. Someone to review the evidence on human health impacts of synthetic turf materials. Summarize not just the findings, but the quality of the evidence (e.g., how rigorous are the studies?) There is no crumb rubber in this proposal, so this wouldn’t need to be part of the review. Staff will search for this person and report back to the board. 3. Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2025. Nomination of Liz Bageant as Vice Chair. Moved: Bill Arms Seconded: Sara Reynolds Vote: Ayes: Sara Reynolds, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Kelda McGurk, Caitlin Cameron 4. Approval of Minutes- None. 5. Other Business. Next meeting January 21, 2025. Agenda: Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Maplewood II Project, potentially Cayuga Medical Center emergency generator building. Also, Mirabito may come back to the Planning Board with their project- they’ve eliminated the carwash and made other modifications. The board discussed the new policy surrounding cutoff times for receiving public written comments for a project. The board decided that written comments will be collected until noon the day of the Planning Board meeting, at which time they will be emailed to the Board. Comments received in time to be included in any Planning Board mail out (seven days before a meeting), will be added to the mail out packet. Any written comments received after the noon cutoff on the day of the meeting will be sent to the Planning Board after the meeting. This does not affect oral comments during persons to be heard at the meeting. 6. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned upon a motion by Ms. Cameron at 8:46 pm, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous. Submitted by Monica Moll, Deputy Town Clerk PB 2025-01-21 (Filed 2/2) Pg.1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD January 21, 2025 Draft Minutes Present: Caitlin Cameron, Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Bill Arms, Kelda McGurk, and Sara Reynolds CJ Randall, Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Senior Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; David O’Shea, Director of Engineering; Dana Magnason, Senior Code Officer; Emily Rodgers, Civil Engineer Ms. Cameron opened the meeting at 6:31 p.m. 1. Persons to be heard Yayoi Koizumi – she thanked the board for their careful review of the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project. She addressed Cornell University’s response to the legal challenge brought against them by Zero Waste Ithaca. She stated that procedural arguments made by Cornell University distract from the scientific issues raised by Zero Waste Ithaca regarding the harmful effects of using synthetic turf. She states that algal blooms in Cayuga Lake is an example of the consequences of microplastic pollution. She claims Cornell intimidates students from speaking out against Cornell’s policies. She commends the Town Planning Board for prioritizing the community’s welfare and she would like continued accountability from Cornell to protect the community. Andrew Molnar - He thanked the Planning Board for considering a revote on the Verizon cell phone tower. Caroline Ashurst - She thanked the Planning Board for considering a revote on the Verizon cell tower. She wanted to also point out that the only people that support the synthetic turf fields are student athletes. She believes these students are not educated about PFAS and believes if they understood what this field could do to impact their health they would change their mind about support. Bethany Ojalehto Mays spoke via Zoom. She was surprised at the last meeting that it was brought up this field would be important to support women’s field hockey. She stated if Cornell really prioritized women’s field hockey they would have been more forthcoming on the Meinig Fieldhouse SEQR regarding the destruction of the existing women’s field hockey field. She believes they would have treated the two projects as one and ensured the Meinig Fieldhouse project would not jeopardize the women’s field hockey field at another site. She believes this segmentation was inappropriate. 2. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a PB 2025-01-21 (Filed 2/2) Pg.2 rezoning from Multiple Residence and High-Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five- story apartment buildings, containing 615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two- bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, for which the Planning Board issued a negative determination of environmental significance on December 17, 2024. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent. Ms. Palmer briefly summarized the project. There were no questions from the Board. Staff noted that the PDZ needed to be approved by the Town Board before the Planning Board could vote on the final site plan. Public Hearing Ms. Cameron opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. The Board discussed the draft resolution at length and ultimately made several changes to the resolution, based on a red-lined version submitted to the Board that evening. Mr. Arms raised concerns regarding the number of changes to the draft resolution, saying he was in favor of the project, but wanted more time to consider the changes before voting on it. Further discussion regarding having this type of conversation in the public sphere, as it is beneficial to all stakeholders involved in the project and keeps the project moving forward. PB RESOLUTION 2025-03: Preliminary Site Plan Approval Maplewood Phase II Project Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, and 63.-2-7.3 Town of Ithaca Planning Board January 21, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High-Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five- story apartment buildings, containing 615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two- bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, PB 2025-01-21 (Filed 2/2) Pg.3 stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent, 2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and a rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Parts 617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii), respectively, as well as Town of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Code section 148-5B(2) as the project as proposed involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and sewage systems, 3. The Planning Board, at its meeting on August 6, 2024, proposed to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the project, and on August 7, 2024, notified potential Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead Agency, 4. The Planning Board, at its meeting on September 17, 2024, established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the project, after having received no objections from other involved agencies, 5. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on December 17, 2024, made a recommendation to the Town Board per Town Code 270-181 on a proposed revised draft Planned Development Zone rezoning document, labeled “for 12-17-24 PB meeting,” 6. The Planning Board, at their meeting on December 17, 2024, issued a negative determination of environmental significance for the project, after reviewing application materials, studies, and a narrative plan set dated 07-19-2024, titled Maplewood Phase II Preliminary Site Plan Submission,” submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; supplemental materials and drawings dated 08-26-2024, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; revised materials and drawings, dated 11-15-24, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; additional materials and drawings, dated 12-9-24, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; a completed Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, prepared by the applicant; and a completed FEAF Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, 7. At a Public Hearing held on January 21, 2025, the Planning Board has reviewed, and accepted as adequate additional project information, including a revised narrative with lighting cut sheets, dated January 7, 2025, drawings titled “Cornell- Maplewood Phase II,” including sheets L-001, L-002, L100-L108, AL100.S, and AL900.S, prepared by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC, dated 12/20/24; previously reviewed drawings received as stated above, including: Sheets A101-A103, A230, and PB 2025-01-21 (Filed 2/2) Pg.4 A231, prepared by CBT, dated 10/25/2024; and Sheets C101-C110, Sheets C201-205, and Sheets C301-305, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., dated 11/15/2024; Construction Management Plan Sheets CMP 1-9 prepared by Greystar, dated July 18, 2024; and other application materials, and 8. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law 239- l et seq., and such Department responded in a January 10, 2025, letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l, m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Maplewood Phase II Project, as described in the materials listed in Whereas #6 and 7 above, subject to the following conditions, to be met: Before final site plan approval: a. Submission of documentation to and a determination from the Town of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement that all fire flow calculations are satisfactory, and all emergency access issues have been satisfied, b. Submission to and approval by the Director of Engineering of all items listed under the “Stormwater” section in the Town of Ithaca Engineering Memorandum prepared by David O’Shea, Director of Engineering, dated 01/02/2025, c. Approval by the Town Board of the concept and location of any proposed dedicated utilities (sanitary sewer), and trail/pedestrian facilities (including pedestrian-actuated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)), d. Coordination with all utility companies (including NYSEG and Verizon) to assure that they have no concerns associated with the project’s connection to the electrical grid, with the burying of utility lines, or with other project elements, e. Submission of proof by the City of Ithaca that the applicant has satisfied the comments regarding project elements impacting or located on the city-owned water tank property listed in the email from Matt Sledjeski, City of Ithaca Environmental Engineer, dated September 12, 2024, f. Submission of letters of commitment from Ithaca Bikeshare and Ithaca Carshare that they will locate bicycles and vehicles, respectively, on the project site, and from Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. (TCAT) that it intends to serve the project site, g. Submission of documentation showing location(s) of off-site contractor parking, and location of temporary trail public parking. Before the issuance of a building permit: h. Submission of evidence of approval from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation for the additional mitigation fencing proposed to protect the PB 2025-01-21 (Filed 2/2) Pg.5 Mitchell Family Cemetery from the Maplewood Phase II development, i. Submission, review, execution, and filing of an Operation, Maintenance and Reporting agreement for the proposed stormwater management facilities, with the Town of Ithaca, specifying the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system, including: i) Submission of an access easement, or other mechanism, to assure Town of Ithaca access to the stormwater facilities, ii) Review and approval of the access easement and the Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement by the Attorney for the Town and the Town Engineer, and iii)Town Board authorization to allow the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary easements and the Stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement associated with the project, j. Submission of a revised property survey that contains the following language: “A private potable water service is shared between parcels. The Tompkins County Whole Health and Town of Ithaca must be notified prior to any change in ownership between the parcels that results in a non-common owner,” and the wording in condition “z” below regarding fire and emergency access, k. Consolidation of Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, and 63.-2-7.3, and submission to the Planning Department of a copy of the completed Tompkins County Consolidation Request Form, l. Submission for, and approval by the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent of, a Highway Work Permit, and submission of all items listed under the “Road Right of Way (ROW)” section in the Town of Ithaca Engineering Memorandum that was prepared by David O’Shea, Director of Engineering, dated 01/02/2025, m. Submission of a Road Use Agreement for review by the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent and Town of Ithaca Town Board, approval of the Agreement by the Town of Ithaca Town Board, and full execution of the Agreement, n. and Completion and dedication to the Town, and acceptance by the Town Board, of any sewer infrastructure. Before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy: o. Construction of the multi-use trail, p. Installation and completion of all proposed pedestrian facilities, safety devices, and lighting fixtures within the Maple Avenue Highway Right Of Way (ROW), and a determination by the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent that all such facilities have passed Town inspection, q. Final dedication to and acceptance by the Town of all pedestrian facilities and lighting fixtures proposed for dedication, r. Installation of the bike storage building, s. Submission of any required executed easements, licenses, or other legal agreements involving Town or City property, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town. Before issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the last constructed multi-unit residential building: PB 2025-01-21 (Filed 2/2) Pg.6 t. Submission of the NYS DEC SPDES Notice of Termination to the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department, u. Satisfaction of the terms of the executed Road Use Agreement, v. Completion of the Materials & Amenities Plan and Planting Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. General Conditions of Approval: w. For as long as the Maplewood II project is in operation, the three parking spaces indicated on the approved plan sets shall remain open to the public, be maintained in useable conditions, and, if and as determined necessary by the Attorney for the Town, be subject to a legal agreement regarding public access and use. Signage shall be approved by the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent and shall be installed and maintained. If and when the Maplewood II project ceases operation, if deemed necessary and practicable by the Town Highway Superintendent, the site owners shall construct three public parking places in the vicinity of Maple Avenue to serve the East Ithaca Recreation Way, x. Noise producing construction activities will be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. unless authorized otherwise by the Town Board in accordance with Town Code Chapter 184, y. Any changes to the approved site plans must be submitted to Planning staff for review and may require Planning Board approval in accordance with Town Code 270-191, and z. Upon conveyance of the Maplewood I or Maplewood II parcels so that there is no longer identical ownership of the two parcels, filing in the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office of an access easement that has been approved by the Attorney for the Town; such filing shall be made at the time of the recording of the deed for the conveyed parcel, and proof of such filing shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 5 days of the filing. Moved: Bill Arms Seconded: Cindy Kaufman Vote: Ayes: Sara Reynolds, Bill Arms, Kelda McGurk, Caitlin Cameron, Cindy Kaufman 3. Approval of Minutes – None 4. Other Business Ms. Balestra spoke regarding the Game Farm Road Project and the list of items the Planning Board wanted prior to making the SEQR determination. She reported that she has canvassed several county, municipal and educational representatives to find a qualified individual(s) to consult on PFAS and other components in synthetic turf and cannot find an independent consultant not affiliated with Cornell University who is available and can do what the Board is asking. She will continue looking. She added that while doing research for another project, she came across a 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for future expansion of the “Southeast Cornell PB 2025-01-21 (Filed 2/2) Pg.7 Campus,” which includes the properties associated with the proposed Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project as well as other adjoining areas. Staff had never seen this document and do not know if it will apply to the proposed field hockey field project and they will be doing a deep dive into the document and report back to the Board. The meeting scheduled for February 4th has no items and will either become a training meeting or be canceled. Staff will contact the board once it has been determined. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:26pm upon a motion by Ms. Cameron, seconded by Mr. Arms, unanimous. Submitted by, Monica Moll, Deputy Town Clerk From: To: Subject: Sent: Christianne White Town Of Ithaca Planning Support for 2/18/25 716 Elmira Road improvements 2/17/2025 12:59:37 PM WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Planning Board, I am in support of the filling and grading at George Sheldrake’s property at 716 Elmira Road. We are their neighbors to the south and recommend the Sheldrakes as excellent neighbors and caretakers of both their land …and ours! They rent our fields and are always helping us with farm related projects and making improvements to the farm. From my perspective, George Sheldrake’s willingness to help his neighbors and his knowledge, tools, and tractors are the reason our part of the Inlet Valley has been able to remain agricultural in nature, and he is a lynchpin in the caretaking of the environment for our area. Christianne McMillan White christiannemcmwhite@gmail.com 607-227-6638 From: To: Subject: Sent: Caroline Ashurst Town Of Ithaca Planning; pbstaff@cityofithaca.org; Commendation and Support for GEIS on the Proposed Sports Complex 2/17/2025 3:14:19 PM WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Members of the Town Planning Board, Thank you for your decision to consider a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed sports complex on Game Farm Road. Evaluating the entire project comprehensively, rather than in fragmented pieces, reflects a commitment to responsible planning and ensures that the cumulative impacts of the development are fully understood and addressed. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a GEIS must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if there is any possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. As specified in SEQRA: If the lead agency has determined that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact, it will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement." (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). A GEIS is a necessity to ensure a comprehensive review of the project and its potential impacts; it is critical to avoid setting a problematic precedent where large-scale projects bypass full Environmental Impact Assessments through a series of piecemeal approvals of projects, especially given Cornell’s construction boom in the past decade that will likely continue to go on. Cornell now suggests that at least some of the remaining future field proposals at the Game Farm Road site will be natural grass, which is a positive development. Again, however, the lack of specificity and accountability raises significant concerns. While Cornell representatives seemed to state during the January 7 Planning Board meeting that there will now be fewer than the total of 11 synthetic turf fields on Cornell campus as envisioned in the "Long Range Vision" plan, there are no details on how many fields at the Game Farm Road site will be natural grass, nor any guarantees or accountability mechanisms to ensure this commitment is upheld. This is precisely where a GEIS becomes essential, as it would provide the transparency and enforceable framework necessary to hold Cornell accountable to its statements. I urge the board to proceed with a Positive Declaration and to prioritize the preparation of both a GEIS and an EIS to guide this critical process effectively. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your commitment to sustainable development. Thank You, Caroline Ashurst References: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. "Step 4: Determine Significance." Accessed January 14, 2025. https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits-licenses/seqr/stepping-through- seqr-process/step-4. Zero Waste Ithaca. The Case Against Artificial Turf Expansion at Cornell: A Bibliography. Accessed February 17, 2025. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmdRpuWe_ZIU/edit? usp=sharing White, Gillian. "New Synthetic Turf Fieldhouse Raises Concerns From Local Environmental Activists." The Cornell Daily Sun, November 7, 2024. https://cornellsun.com/2024/11/07/new-synthetic-turf- fieldhouse-raises-concerns-from-local-environmental-activists/. With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! 2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal-disclaimers From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Carver Hauptman Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org; info@zerowasteithaca.org; Comment for the Planning Board Meeting 2/18/2025 11:00:23 AM WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Good morning, I would appreciate it if this comment could be read at the planning board meeting tonight, thank you! Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board members, I am writing to address a critical discrepancy in the data provided by Cornell University in their Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility, Additional Materials report, dated July 9, 2024 (Page 11). The report's claim regarding the environmental impact of synthetic turf disposal lacks proper citations and significantly underestimates both the volume of synthetic turf waste and its environmental consequences. In the following response, I will outline the issues with Cornell's data, provide credible references, and highlight the broader implications of synthetic turf use and disposal for our community and environment. This is what Cornell University says in their response, on page 11 of the Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility, Additional Materials, dated July 9, 2024: These citations are articles from media or from non-governmental organization websites that discuss plastic recycling in general. Two reports note that the ultimate fate of artificial turf is disposal, as opposed to end-of-life recycling. To place concerns about recycling and/or disposal of synthetic turf in perspective, let us consider that in the United States, the amount of syntheticturf used (and ultimately disposed of) each year is 6,500 tons (1300 fields replaced and 1500 new added annually, translating to 3.4 million square yards of new turf annually, at a weight of 3.8 pounds per square yard), compared to the total amount of plastics disposed of each year, which is 44 million tons. In other words, synthetic turf accounts for about 0.015% of total plastics disposal in the United States each year, which also translates to 0.015% of the total petroleum and energy used to manufacture plastics used in the United States each year (assuming that consumption is equivalent to disposal).." The above statement contains several inaccuracies and misleading comparisons that undermine the validity of its argument. Below is a detailed analysis of its flaws: 1. Irrelevant Comparison: Cornell’s response to our concerns about the failure of plastic recycling focuses narrowly on disposal weight of synthetic turf, comparing the 6,500 tons of synthetic turf disposal to the total U.S. plastic waste stream (44 million tons annually). This framing minimizes the impact of synthetic turf by ignoring its significant long-term harms on human health and environment: microplastic pollution, toxic chemical leaching, and climate emissions through incineration and recycling process (CIEL, 2019) - especially so-called “advanced” chemical recycling (Mock et al, 2022). Synthetic turf sheds microplastics into soil and waterways during use, contributing to persistent contamination beyond what disposal metrics capture. Its materials—such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and recycled tire infill—release harmful chemicals as they degrade, threatening ecosystems and public health. Additionally, synthetic turf production and disposal generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions. By focusing solely on weight of plastic recycling, Cornell makes light of these broader environmental and health impacts. Synthetic turf not only highlights the failures of plastic recycling systems but also adds lasting environmental and public health burdens that demand more comprehensive scrutiny. Cornell's response constructs a strawman argument by misframing the issue. Instead of addressing the specific concerns raised about synthetic turf’s environmental and health impacts—such as microplastic shedding, toxic chemical leaching, and disposal challenges—they attempt to downplay the issue by comparing synthetic turf waste to the total volume of plastic waste in the U.S. This tactic distracts from the real concern: synthetic turf pollution is not just about weight but about persistent contamination, localized environmental damage, and the lack of viable end-of-life solutions. By focusing only on tonnage, Cornell sidesteps the core issue and fails to engage with the broader risks posed by synthetic turf fields. 2. Lack of Citations for Data: The paragraph provides no references or sources for the claim that synthetic turf accounts for only 6,500 tons annually or 0.015% of total U.S. plastic disposal. The figure seems to be coming from the synthetic turf industry Brock USA’s webpage which calculates the number to 0.011%. https://www.brockusa.com/sustainability-in- focus-how-the-artificial-turf-industry-is-gaining-on-green/ The statement also narrowly focuses on disposal issues inherent in synthetic turfs without acknowledging that synthetic turf fields often do not enter traditional waste management systems (landfills, incineration, or recycling). Instead, many fields are abandoned, stockpiled, or repurposed informally, leading to significant environmental impacts. (Abel 2024; Barber & Gambaborta 2024; Lundstrom 2019; NBC Bay Area 2024; PEER 2022). Please note that “reuse” of synthetic turf only delays the inevitable disposal. 3. Underestimation of Synthetic Turf Material Weight: Cornell’s claim that only 6,500 tons of synthetic turf are disposed of annually suggests that approximately only 53 fields are being disposed of nationwide each year, assuming each field weighs 121 tons on average. The figure of 121 tons per field is based on data cited in the same document submitted by Cornell, Additional Materials, on page 8, which references a study by Magnusson et al. The Margusson study assumes an average of 110 metric tons per field, equivalent to approximately 121 U.S. tons. Interestingly, the 2017 “Guidelines for Synthetic Turf Base Systems” by The Synthetic Turf Council, a trade association representing the synthetic turf industry, indicate an average artificial athletic field uses 400,000 pounds (200 tons) of infill and 40,000 pounds (20 tons) of turf carpet, totaling 440,000 pounds (220 tons) per field. (Massey & Pollard, 2023) If we use the numbers from Synthetic Turf Council, it will make it that only 30 synthetic turf fields are disposed of annually every year in the US. This disposal figure of both 30 and 53 fields by Cornell is implausibly low, especially considering synthetic turf fields have an estimated lifespan of 8–10 years and that over 1,200-1,500 new fields are installed annually, as noted by Cornell. If 1,200– 1,500 new fields are installed annually, and their lifespan is 8–10 years, this means installations from 10 years ago (2014) are now likely due for disposal. Given the significant increase in synthetic turf installations over the past 10–15 years, it is reasonable to assume that thousands of fields should now be reaching the end of their lifespan each year and should be entering solid waste streams, but they are not. The discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of Cornell’s disposal estimate and whether it accounts for improperly managed or undocumented synthetic turf waste. 4. Impossible Disposal: There simply is no good way to dispose of plastics. Synthetic turf is composed of mixed materials, including polyethylene and polypropylene fibers, rubber infill, and backing, all of which are exceedingly difficult to recycle. Even when they are recycled, plastic recycling is contaminating process and recycling process itself contributes to microplastic pollution of our air, water and soil (Brooks, 2022; Brown, 2023; Waste 360 Zero Waste Ithaca bibliography, 2025-3). “Reuse” of synthetic turf only delays the inevitable fate of synthetic turf either entering waste streams or abandoned. I urge the Town Planning Board to recognize that the impacts of synthetic turf extend far beyond what Cornell’s misleading data suggests. Given the well-documented environmental and public health concerns associated with synthetic turf, it is critical that the town conduct a comprehensive Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) rather than evaluating each synthetic turf project in isolation. A GEIS will allow for a full assessment of cumulative impacts, ensuring that future decisions are informed by a holistic and scientifically grounded approach. Thank you for considering this request, and I strongly encourage the Planning Board to move forward with a GEIS instead of a piecemeal evaluation process. Sincerely, Carver Hauptman References: Abel, David. “Tons of Abandoned Artificial Turf Raises Questions About Recycling Promises.” The Boston Globe. July 18, 2024. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/07/18/science/artificial-turf-not-being-recycled/. Brooks, Tanya. "New Greenpeace Report: Plastic Recycling Is a Dead-End Street - Year After Year, Plastic Recycling Declines Even as Plastic Waste Increases." Greenpeace USA. October 24, 2022. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-greenpeace-report-plastic- recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic- waste-increases/. Brown, Erina, Anna MacDonald, Steve Allen, Deonie Allen. “The Potential for a Plastic Recycling Facility to Release Microplastic Pollution and Possible Filtration Remediation Effectiveness.” Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances. May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100309 This study highlights that plastic recycling facilities can be a significant source of microplastic pollution, primarily through their wash water. The research identifies that most microplastics released are smaller than 10 µm, which are not adequately captured by conventional filtration methods. Notably, the study found that the microplastics released into the water amounted to 13% of the total plastic processed. These findings underscore the urgent need for improved filtration technologies and regulatory measures to address microplastic discharge in recycling processes. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. May 2019. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/. FieldTurf. "Buying Guide: First Artificial Turf Field." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://fieldturf.com/en/articles/detail/buying-guide-first-artificial-turf-field/. Greenpeace USA. "Plastic Recycling Is a Dead-End Street." October 24, 2022. Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling- is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste- increases/. Health and Environment Alliance. "Artificial Turf and Safer Alternatives." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.healthandenvironment.org/resources/environmental-hazards/exposure- sources/artificial-turf-and-safer-alternatives. Massey, Rachel, ScD, and Lindsey Pollard, MS. "Playing on Plastic: Artificial Turf Hazards and Safer Alternatives." Collaborative on Health and the Environment, August 21, 2023. https://www.healthandenvironment.org/join-us/blog/playing-on-plastic-artificial-turf-hazards- and-safer-alternatives. The 2017 Synthetic Turf Council guideline referenced in this article is available on its website for $95 here: Möck, Alexandra, Winfried Bulach, and Johannes Betz. "Climate Impact of Pyrolysis of Waste Plastic Packaging in Comparison with Reuse and Mechanical Recycling." Öko- Institut, commissioned by Zero Waste Europe and the Rethink Plastic Alliance, September 23, 2022. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp- content/uploads/2022/09/zwe_2022_report_climat_impact__pyrolysis_plastic_packaging.pdf. Research commissioned by Zero Waste Europe and Rethink Plastic Alliance indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from mechanical recycling are significantly lower than those from chemical recycling by a factor of nine. The study emphasizes that to align with the Paris Agreement, mechanical recycling of plastic packaging should be prioritized over pyrolysis. Larker, Barber, and David Gambacorta. “‘Forever Fields’: How Pennsylvania Became a Dumping Ground for Discarded Artificial Turf.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. December 13, 2023. https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/artificial-turf-pfas-rematch-pennsylvania- dumping-ground-20231213.html. Lundstrom, Marjie, Eli Wolfe, and FairWarning. "The Dangerous Pileup of Artificial Turf." The Atlantic, December 19, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/artificial-turf-fields-are-piling-no- recycling-fix/603874/. NBC Bay Area. “Disposal of School’s Artificial Turf Field Highlights Growing Environmental Concerns.” YouTube video. December 31, 2024. https://youtu.be/cPYLL5Pabk0? si=AEGeM_f9RJMgDtfy. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Complaint of Deceptive and Unfair Advertising of Artificial Turf. Filed with Federal Trade Commission, February 28, 2022. https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/3_7_22-Filed-FTC-Complaint- 2.28.22.pdf. This 32-page complaint filed by PEER with the Federal Trade Commission alleges that artificial turf manufacturers engage in deceptive and unfair advertising practices by making false claims about the recyclability of their products. It underscores the absence of dedicated turf recycling facilities in the U.S. and raises concerns about environmental impacts, including microplastic pollution and waste mismanagement. This document provides a critical perspective on the industry's sustainability claims. Synthetic Turf Council. "Synthetic Turf Statistics." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Plastics: Material-Specific Data." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/plastics-material-specific-data. Waste360. "Artificial Turf: A Mounting Disposal Mess: An Investigation by Nonprofit FairWarning Shows How Recycling Scrap Tires into Synthetic Turf Has Become a Mounting Problem." January 7, 2020. https://www.waste360.com/waste-recycling/artificial-turf-a- mounting-disposal-mess. Zero Waste Ithaca. The Case Against Artificial Turf at Cornell: A Zero Waste Ithaca Bibliography. Updated: February 10, 2025 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i- cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO26R-Q/edit?tab=t.0 Written comment submitted to the Ithaca Town Planning Board February 17, 2025 (for the meeting to be held 2/18/2025) Re: Cornell’s Proposal for Athletic Facilities at Game Farm Road Dear Ithaca Town Planning Board members: Following my comments submitted in December and January, I urge you to (1) hold Cornell accountable to the stated terms of their original SEQR segmentation; and (2) advance the proposal for a generic environmental impact statement. I expect that other public commenters and board members themselves will address the need for a GEIS, so I focus my comment on the first point. 1) It is your responsibility to uphold the integrity of the SEQR process by ensuring that the applicant does not contradict the terms of their original SEQR segmentation request and apply inappropriate pressure on the Board. The public record reveals that Cornell’s request for a SEQR segmentation applying to the Game Farm Road and Meinig Fieldhouse projects was put forth in bad faith. Early in 2024, Cornell requested and was granted a SEQR segmentation on their assertion that the two projects are functionally independent,” “aren’t even necessarily dependent on each other” (8:06), “are on different timelines” (~10:30), and that “The City Planning Board’s review and anticipated approval of the Fieldhouse project does not commit the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to approve the construction of the field hockey field (slid)” (2024-05-21 Town PB Meeting).1 These claims were promptly contradicted when the applicant returned to the Town Planning Board later in 2024 requesting approval of their Game Farm Road project. At the November and December 2024 Board meetings, Cornell argued that their proposed Game Farm Road field (a) must be artificial turf due to putative field hockey regulations; and (b) must be completed before the Fall 2025 field hockey season.2 Both points are only relevant because the Meinig Fieldhouse destroyed the existing women’s field hockey pitch on central campus. Thus, the Game Farm Road Project can only be considered the second phase of this action, with a product specification and timeline that are highly dependent on the Meinig Fieldhouse Project.2 Cornell Athletic Director Nicki Moore’s January statement acknowledges this contradiction in a public apology to the Cornell Athletics community. She states that the two projects are interconnected,” that “I should have listened to my project team colleagues when they warned me of growing timeline risks,” and that the Meinig Fieldhouse’s destruction of the existing field hockey pitch dictates product specifications at Game Farm Road (“the sport played at the level…requires a flat, synthetic, non-in-filled, watered surface.”).2 I am not aware of a similar apology from Cornell Athletic Director Moore to the Ithaca Planning Boards who were misinformed about the real relationship between these two “interconnected” projects with “growing timeline risks” and highly dependent product specifications. Action Request: If the Town Planning Board’s review continues on the pretense of SEQR segmentation,3 then we ask the Board to preserve the integrity of the SEQR process by upholding that: 1) It is inappropriate for the applicant to raise concerns specific to field hockey turf requirements or season start dates, because these contradict the terms of their SEQR segmentation request; and b)It is inappropriate for the Board members to consider these concerns. The degree to which Cornell now pressures the Board to greenlight yet another plastic petrochemical fake grass field on their (Cornell’s) internal timeline is the same degree to which they violate their testimony that the two projects are functionally independent. It is the applicant’s responsibility to plan multiple phases of an action in a fully transparent manner so as to not hold the Planning Board hostage to a bad-faith timeline of allegedly “independent” projects. NY State Law states that inappropriate SEQR segmentation “may result in legal action.”3 Please uphold the integrity of environmental review by (1) protecting a decision process that ensures the original terms of the SEQR segmentation request are upheld; and (2) requiring a generic environmental impact statement for the entire athletic complex at Game Farm Road.4 Let us recall that it is also in the athletes’ own interests to conduct an adequate environmental review. As one public advocate noted following publication of a study finding higher levels of PFAS on athletes’ bodies after playing on plastic grass: “The last thing we should be doing is putting down acres of a plastic fossil fuel product … with chemicals that are going to get all over athletes’ skin, and into soil and water…It just boggles my mind that people are still considering using this stuff.” Boggled, bethany ojalehto mays, PhD Cornell on Fire ENDNOTES 1. The Planning Board engaged in a long discussion about this segmentation request, noting that the permissible grounds for SEQR segmentation include if the future phase is speculative or may not even occur 21:00). Even at the time of segmentation, it was noted that some dimensions of this segmentation were unusual. During the May 21 Board meeting, when asked if they have an idea of when they would apply for the Game Farm Road field, the applicant answered: “We’re targeting handing in an application for Game Farm Road at the end of June of this year (2024).” Town Planning Board staff member Chris Balestra noted that it’s a little bit concerning that the segmentation question is being asked now” because typically SEQR segmentation requests apply to other projects that would occur in the “way distant future,” but “in this case, it’s almost simultaneous” (~16:15). In response to Board member questions, the applicant later asserted, They are not functionally dependent on another: one does not have to happen in order for the other one to happen: there's no relationship there…there’s another project on the way that is mildly related to this.” 23:00). This is inaccurate. Across multiple meetings, Susan Brock also noted that the environmental review must consider the environmental impacts of the entire project, regardless of whether part of the project is located within the Town or City of Ithaca (see Attorney Brock at 59:00 during the 2024-03-19 Planning Board Meeting). It is only appropriate to consider the impacts of all the artificial turf fields being proposed at Cornell through their athletics master plan. Speaking to a Board member’s question about the implications of SEQR segmentation for the applicant, Ms Michaels responded:“If the City says it’s not permissible, then they will be the lead agency for both projects and the schedule for the project gets further delayed, which starts to impact the timeline for athletics and the construction/completion for when a field can be ready…so that has implications for the athletic community” (~50:00). This was the perfect opportunity to spell out the real relationship. 2. In November 2024, Cornell informed the Town Planning Board that the women’s field hockey team had played “their last game” at the central campus pitch and now must rush the current proposal in time to construct the new field in time for the women’s field hockey season. They announced the same in an Athletics press release. Cornell’s Athletics Coverage on October 25, 2024 spells out the joint nature of the two projects: The Big Red celebrated on the field, taking pictures and enjoying its 85th and final victory on Dodson Field before its move to Game Farm Road complex next season.” In January 2025, Cornell Athletic Director Moore made a public statement explaining that, “the sport played at the level of this [field hockey] team (in 2023, they reached a #16 national ranking) requires a flat, synthetic, non-in-filled, watered surface. The closest existing field of this kind is in Syracuse.” Until recently, the closest field of this kind was conveniently located on Cornell’s central campus at the Meinig Fieldhouse site. Moore publicly advocated for the Meinig Fieldhouse Project without ever mentioning the direct repercussions it would have for the Game Farm Road project specifications and timeline. Cornell Athletic Director Moore’s statement confirms that the timelines of the two projects were directly related, not “different” as the applicant originally claimed in their SEQR segmentation request: “I should have shared developments with the field hockey community along the way, and I should have listened to my project team colleagues when they warned me of growing timeline risks…However, when the timelines got tight, and headwinds appeared, I miscalculated the risks of ending up in this moment.” 3. These two projects are clearly different phases of the same action and should be considered as such for purposes of environmental review, according to NY State Law: “If an action consists of multiple phases, sets of activities, or if separate agencies are involved, SEQR requires agencies jointly consider these cumulative impacts during their review. Segmentation of an action into smaller components for an individual review contradicts the intent of the law and may result in legal action.” This interpretation is supported by Attorney Brock’s observations during the initial SEQR segmentation discussion in May 2024. She noted that the timing of the two projects suggest a single SEQR review because their timelines “are dovetailing so closely,” and that Cornell’s “overall plan” makes these projects dependent because “by putting certain facilities on Central Campus, you are displacing other facilities elsewhere…” [~38:00]). Likewise, Planning Board staff Chris Balestra noted it’s “a little bit concerning that the segmentation question is being asked now” because typically SEQR segmentation requests apply to other projects that would occur in the “way distant future,” but in this case, it’s almost simultaneous” (~16:15, May 2024 PB meeting). The ideal outcome would result in the Meinig Fieldhouse Project and the Game Farm Road athletics complex to be treated as different phases of the same action, with a single environmental review considering the full scope of cumulative environmental impact for all phases of Cornell’s overall plan. Unfortunately, that may no longer be possible given the City Planning Board’s disputed approval of both the SEQR segmentation and the Meinig Fieldhouse Project. 4. As both Town and City of Ithaca Planning Board members stressed in earlier deliberations, the Boards have received historic volumes of credible, evidence-based concerns from community members, including experts, scientists, and faculty members (and here I cite only a small selection of comments). It is a disservice to the community’s and scientists’ legitimate concerns to rush this project through approvals without an EIS. Long Range Vision Cornell University Red marks added to show the five additional field in the Long Range Vision Plan). plasticpollutioncoalition @ Cornell University Long Range Vision Red marks added to show the five additional field in the Long Range Vision Plan). TODD HAYNES film MARK ANNE TIM BILL VICTOR BILLRUFFALOHATHAWAYROBBINSCAMPGARBERPULLMANDARKWATERS ONE OF THE DEADLIEST COVER-UPS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Democracy Dies in Darkness Climate In a rst, scientists nd microplastics are building up deep in our brains A new study shows that microplastics have crossed the blood-brain barrier — and that their numbers are rising. 6 min 124 By Shannon Osaka A new study shows that microplastics are making their way into human brains — with potentially dangerous effects on people’s health and mental acuity. A paper published Monday in Nature Medicine found that the tiny fragments of plastic are passing the blood-brain barrier and into human brains, and the amount of microplastics in the brain appears to be increasing over time. There were 50 percent more fragments in brains analyzed in 2024 than in 2016. The scientists also examined the brains of 12 deceased patients diagnosed with dementia, and found that they had three to five times more microplastics than normal brains. Every time we scratch the surface, it uncovers a whole host of, ‘Oh, is this worse than we thought?’” one of the paper’s lead authors, University of New Mexico toxicology professor Matthew Campen, said in an interview about an earlier version of the paper. Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic — less than 5 millimeters in size, or smaller than a pencil eraser — that are either manufactured or slough off of plastic objects. Nanoplastics are even smaller, and can be a fraction of the width of a human hair. In recent years, scientists have realized that many plastic items (plastic bags, water bottles, tires, polyester or synthetic clothing) can shed small fragments or fibers that make their way into air, food and water. Many of those particles are burrowing deep into the human body. Microplastics have been identified in the liver, placenta, blood, testicles, even certain arteries that lead to the heart. Today at 11:00 a.m. EST For the new study, scientists analyzed 52 brain specimens, 28 that were autopsied in 2016 and 24 that were autopsied in 2024. They found microplastics in every sample, but there were significantly higher numbers of microplastics in those from 2024. Researchers then obtained additional brain samples going back to 1997 and found that they followed the same trend: more recent samples had much higher numbers of microplastics. They found no correlation with how old the person was when they died. Campen says that, with just a single study, there is reason to be cautious when interpreting the results. But, he added, the amount of plastics produced globally doubles every 10 to 15 years, which suggests that humans’ level of exposure has skyrocketed. “To see it go up 50 percent in eight years in human organs … I think that’s perfectly in line with what we’re seeing in the environment.” The researchers estimated that the average brain studied had around 7 grams of microplastics in it, or a little more than the weight of a plastic spoon. But they cautioned that could be an overestimate, as some other particles in the brain can resemble microplastics. Jaime Ross, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Rhode Island who has studied microplastics’ effect on mouse brains, praised the new research and said the increased “plastic burden” of microplastics in the body was concerning because it could exacerbate inflammation. Phoebe Stapleton, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Rutgers who was not involved in the study, said in an email that scientists have long wondered whether microplastics could pass the blood-brain barrier — the thick membrane that protects the brain from toxins and viruses. While it’s not the first time researchers have found microplastics in the brain, the new study shows that the pieces of plastic are reaching deeper into the frontal cortex. Last year, a group of researchers found microplastics in the olfactory bulb, or the part of the brain that processes smells. The particles were present in 8 of the 15 brains studied. This paper provides clear evidence that micro and nanoplastics are indeed in the human brain,” she said. The paper also showed that the brain appears to be more susceptible to microplastics than other organs — brain samples had 7 to 30 times more microplastics in them than similar tests of the liver and kidneys. The scientists also used an electron microscope to identify the shards of plastic in the tissue itself. They found small shards or flakes, in a shape that Stapleton described as “unexpected.” Most studies of microplastics’ effect on cells and organs examine spherical-shaped particles — different shapes could mean different health effects. Other scientists have used mice to study how microplastics in the brain could affect health, and found troubling signs. In one study from Ross and other University of Rhode Island researchers, mice were given water laced with tiny polystyrene particles, the same type of plastic that is used in plastic foam and yogurt containers. After just three weeks of exposure, the mice demonstrated cognitive changes — including changes in the brain consistent with early markers of Alzheimer’s. (Humans are getting microplastics through water as well — the tiny particles have been found in bottled water and in tap water.) Researchers caution that it’s still far too early to connect microplastics to specific cognitive problems, given the ways in which dementia alters the body. Patients with dementia have weaker blood-brain barriers, they warn, and have a harder time clearing toxins from the brain. In human brains, therefore, the high numbers of microplastics could be an effect of dementia or Alzheimer’s, rather than the cause. Richard Thompson, a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth and the first scientist to use the word “microplastics,” said that linking the tiny particles to health effects is “far more challenging” than identifying them in the first place. But Thompson, who was not involved in the current research, added that studies like this start to paint a picture of associations between the particles and health risks. Kimberly Wise White, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Chemistry Council, a plastics industry group, said in an email that plastic makers are working to help reduce the creation of microplastics. “The global plastics industry supports advancing scientific understanding of microplastics,” she added. Still, researchers warn that they are still just scratching the surface of what possible health risks microplastics could pose. Last year, a study found that patients with microplastics in a key artery were more likely to experience stroke, heart attack or death. But more research is needed to identify the risks — and part of the issue is the sheer ubiquity of these particles. There are no control groups,” Campen said. “Everyone is exposed.” From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Claire Nickell Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Commendation and Support for GEIS on the Proposed Sports Complex 2/9/2025 4:34:52 PM WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department To the Members of the Town Planning Board, I want to express my support for further review, in the form of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), for the proposed sports complex on Game Farm Road. It seems much more appropriate to do a review of the entire project, rather than piecemeal, in order to best understand all potential environmental and health impacts. From Zero Waste Ithaca: Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a GEIS must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if there is any possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. As specified in SEQRA: If the lead agency has determined that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact, it will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement." (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). The threshold for requiring an EIS is intentionally low; it is sufficient to demonstrate the potential for significant impacts. Our continually updated and submitted 100-page bibliography, containing peer- reviewed studies and reports from reputable non-profits and independent scientists, provides robust evidence that the proposed sports complex may have significant environmental consequences." As a concerned Town of Ithaca resident, I ask you to please make the positive declaration for the GEIS so we can ensure these new projects will be best for Cornel students, faculty and staff, as well as Ithaca City and Town residents, and all the wildlife, too! Thank you for your time! Claire Nickell To the Members of the Town Planning Board, I want to express my support for further review, in the form of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), for the proposed sports complex on Game Farm Road. It seems much more appropriate to do a review of the entire project, rather than piecemeal, in order to best understand all potential environmental and health impacts. From Zero Waste Ithaca: Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a GEIS must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if there is any possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. As specified in SEQRA: If the lead agency has determined that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact, it will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement." (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). The threshold for requiring an EIS is intentionally low; it is sufficient to demonstrate the potential for significant impacts. Our continually updated and submitted 100-page bibliography, containing peer-reviewed studies and reports from reputable non-profits and independent scientists, provides robust evidence that the proposed sports complex may have significant environmental consequences." As a concerned Town of Ithaca resident, I ask you to please make the positive declaration for the GEIS so we can ensure these new projects will be best for Cornel students, faculty and staff, as well as Ithaca City and Town residents, and all the wildlife, too! Thank you for your time! Claire Nickell Dear Town Planning Board Members, As research continues to reveal the dangers of synthetic turf, one issue that cannot be ignored is the heightened risk of MRSA infections. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can cause severe skin infections, bloodstream infections, pneumonia, and even life-threatening sepsis. MRSA spreads easily through cuts, scrapes, and skin-to-skin contact, making athletes—especially those playing on synthetic fields— highly vulnerable. Studies show that MRSA can persist on synthetic turf infill for up to 96 hours, with organic infills like cork and sand—the same “plant-based” options Cornell plans to use—allowing the longest bacterial survival. In contrast, natural grass poses little risk due to its microbial diversity, which naturally suppresses pathogens. Athletes who play on synthetic fields face a higher likelihood of turf burns and abrasions, creating ideal entry points for MRSA. Once contracted, MRSA infections can become difficult to treat because they resist common antibiotics. In severe cases, MRSA can lead to hospitalization, surgery to remove infected tissue, or even death. Why would we knowingly expose athletes to an avoidable health hazard when natural grass provides a safer alternative? The evidence is clear: synthetic turf is a breeding ground for MRSA, while natural grass is not. Institutions promoting plastic fields und er the guise of sustainability are ignoring public health risks. It’s time to prioritize safe, natural surfaces over artificial ones that endanger athletes and communities. Lastly but not the least, I also would like to thank the Town Planning Board for considering GEIS instead of the piecemeal evaluation of each synthetic turf project on campus. Sincerely, Claire Nickell Town of Ithaca resident From: To: Subject: Sent: Caroline Ashurst Town Of Ithaca Planning; Chris Balestra; CJ Randall; Re-Vote? 2/17/2025 2:29:54 PM WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Planning Board Members, It has come to my attention that the meeting was cancelled where there was supposed to be a re-vote happening. There is no agenda item for tomorrow about this. What's going on? Is a re-vote happening? Why was no announcement made? Thank you With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! 2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal- disclaimers From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Yayoi Koizumi Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Re: Public comment for Cornell's Synthetic Turf Expansion 2/18/2025 12:08:41 PM Please note that the pdf "Susan Allen" is a speech made by Professor Susan Allen at Ithaca College, a specialist in microplastic pollution, during the rally opposing synthetic turf expansion at Cornell University on September 3, 2024. We have her permission to share the speech with the planning boards. Yayoi On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:04 PM Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> wrote: Please find attached five documents for Cornell's Game Farm Road synthetic turf projects. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. From: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Sent: Yayoi Koizumi Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Public comment for Cornell's Synthetic Turf Expansion On CY Jim Town PB submission Yayoi 2 18 25.pdf;Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Our Brains_ _ Scientific American.pdf;Murray McBride Public Comment.pdf;Susan Allen comments on synturf pdf;Bennet, Ph.D. JD's 2024 Letter for Westport CT.pdf; 2/18/2025 12:12:59 PM WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Please find attached five documents for Cornell's Game Farm Road synthetic turf projects. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. From: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Sent: Zero Waste Ithaca Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Comment submission in opposition to Cornell's synthetic turf expansion plan Press Release PELC lawsuit Cornell Tower Road Synturf Project .pdf 2/18/2025 12:22:14 PM WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department We are submitting this press release from last week as a part of our public comment on Cornell Universitys' synthetic turf expansion plan. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 11, 2025 Grassroots Group Zero Waste Ithaca Sues City and Cornell for SEQR Violations: Plastic Turf Threatens Public Health and Worsens Microplastic Pollution ITHACA, NY – Grassroots organization Zero Waste Ithaca (ZWI) has filed a lawsuit against Cornell University and the City of Ithaca for violating the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). The lawsuit challenges the approval of synthetic turf fields, which pose significant risks to human health and the environment, including microplastic pollution and the release of carcinogenic chemicals. Synthetic turf is like an invasive species, spreading relentlessly and causing harm,” said a ZWI representative. “Cornell’s continued investment in these fields, despite overwhelming evidence of their harms to human health and the environment, is a betrayal of their responsibility to students, athletes, and the community.” Legal Challenge Against Cornell and the City of Ithaca The lawsuit, developed in collaboration with the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic (PELC) at Elisabeth Haub School of Law, challenges the Ithaca Planning Board’s decision to issue a Negative Declaration for the project, arguing that it ignored substantial evidence and failed to meet SEQR’s requirements for transparency and accountability. ZWI has also publicly raised concerns about Cornell’s deep ties to fossil fuel funding and chemical recycling research with pending patent applications, which further call into question the university’s environmental commitments. This legal challenge is led by a team of dedicated law interns from PELC, who are standing up to Cornell’s powerful in-house legal team in a fight for environmental justice and public health. Our client, Zero Waste Ithaca, has consistently raised valid concerns about the environmental risks of this project,” said Gabriela Martinez, J.D. Candidate 2025 at Pace University’s Elisabeth Haub School of Law. “It is clear that the Planning Board overlooked substantial evidence, undermining the transparency and accountability SEQR is designed to ensure.” Scientific Evidence Highlights Urgency Recent studies have identified synthetic turf as a major source of microplastic pollution. A 2024 Toronto study and a European Union report confirm that synthetic turf is the top contributor, with one study estimating that it accounts for 15 percent of microplastics in Barcelona. Notably, the Barcelona study only accounts for visible pieces of microplastics, not the invisible nanoparticles, which are even more pervasive and harmful. A groundbreaking study published in Nature Medicine on February 3, 2025, reveals that microplastics are crossing the blood-brain barrier, raising alarms about their impact on human health. Researchers found 50 percent more microplastics in brains analyzed in 2024 compared to 2016, a trend that aligns with the global increase in plastic production and use. Dementia patients showed three to five times higher levels of microplastics, underscoring the potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure. Cornell’s Dismissive Response Cornell’s legal response focuses heavily on technicalities, particularly ZWI’s standing under Article 78 of New York State law. The university’s 30-page response dedicates only three to four pages to directly addressing scientific concerns, relying on unsubstantiated literature reviews and a questionable letter from Dr. Frank Rossi, a researcher with ties to the fossil fuel industry. By prioritizing procedural arguments over substantive science, Cornell’s legal team attempts to sidestep legitimate environmental concerns, arguing that only direct users of the fields—not the broader community impacted by microplastic pollution—have legal standing. Cornell’s refusal to engage with science is alarming,” said a ZWI representative. Environmental harm doesn’t stop at property lines, yet the law is stuck in a framework that favors developers over impacted communities. Cornell University and the City of Ithaca must recognize the broader consequences of microplastic pollution before it’s too late.” A Call for Accountability ZWI urges Cornell University and the City of Ithaca to consider the global environmental justice impacts of fossil fuel-derived plastic turf, from extraction, production to disposal. Allowing a reputable Ivy League university to endorse synthetic turf over natural grass sets a dangerous precedent,” said a ZWI spokesperson. “Cornell’s decision will have ripple effects across municipal parks, public schools, and other universities, normalizing the replacement of real grass fields with plastic. Athletic culture must adapt—traditionally outdoor sports should not be forced into year-round play on fossil fuel-derived plastic fields at the expense of public health and the environment.” Media Contact Zero Waste Ithaca | info@zerowasteithaca.org EnvironmentalJustice #Microplastics #StopPlasticPollution #ProtectOurCommunity Sources: European Union report on synthetic turf as a primary microplastic source (2020): https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/a513b793-dd84-d83a-9c06-e7a11580f366 (Page 63) Toronto study on synthetic turf as a primary microplastic source (2024): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Nature Medicine study on microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier (2025): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1 and related coverage in The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/02/03/microplastics-human-brain-in crease/ De Haan study on synthetic turf microplastics in Barcelona (2022): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094 A public comment highlighting Frank Rossi’s ties to fossil fuel-backed initiatives and industry interests: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/81pcip70qlnbl8xdc34hv/1-2-2025-Public-Comment-re-Sasaki-Co nnection-Frank-Rossi.pdf?rlkey=2s5lgmzvyks6sx8q8bcb9xjam&st=ikxaszq8&dl=0 A peer-reviewed study on the environmental justice impact of plastic lifecycle (2024): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106756 Draft capital plan for Cass Park in Ithaca, NY including synthetic turf fields (2022): https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14726/DRAFT-1307008001_Cass-Park-Capi tal-Plan-August-2022_Optimized-ID-2692262?bidId= The Case Against Artificial Turf at Cornell: A Zero Waste Ithaca Bibliography – A 100+ page collection of independent science, peer-reviewed studies, local and national media coverage, and reports from reputable environmental organizations, including documentation of Cornell’s ties to fossil fuel funding: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i-cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO26R-Q/edi t?usp=sharing 1 November 22, 2024 RE: Downsides of Artificial Turf Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is extremely concerned about the proliferation of artificial turf installations around the country. We are providing comments on the adverse impacts of artificial turf so you can make an informed decision, particularly in regard to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and several misstatements of facts /errata that are commonly presented by landscape architects and consultants at various municipal meetings. Our specific comments are set forth below. What are PFAS? PFAS are a large family of chemicals that number between 6,504 1 and 12,0392 human-made chemicals that provide heat, stain, and water resistance. Yet, due to the strong carbon-fluorine bonds that occur in these molecules, PFAS do not easily break down in the environment and are called “forever chemicals.” Well-studied PFAS are toxic to humans in concentrations as small as parts per quadrillion (ppq).3 While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have a consistent definition of PFAS, most states define PFAS as any chemical with at least one fully fluorinated carbon. Regardless of which definition is used, the adverse health impacts of PFAS are undeniable. Specifically, PFAS are associated with cancer and are linked to growth, learning, and behavioral problems in infants and children; fertility and pregnancy problems, including pre-eclampsia; interference with natural human hormones; increased cholesterol; and immune system problems.4 Epidemiological studies have found decreased antibody response to vaccines,5 and 1 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-natl-test-strategy.pdf 2 ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances, https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical_lists/pfasmaster 3 CAL. OFFICE OF ENVTL. HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, Announcement of Availability of a Draft Technical Support Document and Public Workshop for Proposed Public Health Goals for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid in Drinking Water, (July 22, 2021) https://oehha.ca.gov/water/crnr/announcement-availability-draft-technical-support-document-and-public-workshop- proposed. 4 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, (May 2021), https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf 5 Sunderland, E. M. et. al., A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly - and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects , 29 JOURNAL 2 associations between blood serum PFAS levels and both immune system hypersensitivity and autoimmune disorders like asthma and ulcerative colitis.6 The negative immune system effects of PFAS are extremely concerning given the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a “Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and COVID-19,” which recognized the “evidence from human and animal studies that PFAS exposure may reduce antibody responses to vaccines . . . and may reduce infectious disease resistance.”7 Most recently, PFAS exposure has been found to be associated with mortality from cardiovascular disease,8 and with chemotherapy resistance.9 Numerous studies have found toxicity in legacy PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA. Yet, as scientists study newer replacement PFAS, they are finding similar adverse toxicological outcomes in the new PFAS they test.10 A compilation of PFAS toxicity studies shows that virtually every PFAS examined is correlated with adverse health outcomes.11 Finally, it is worth noting that a peer-reviewed article from 2023 concludes that “there are cancer risks probability occurs as a result of chemical exposure from artificial turf.”12 It is also important to note that several PFAS are subject to California’s Prop 65. One of the PFAS on California’s Prop 65 list is PFOA,13 which is found in roughly three-quarters of artificial turf.14 Routes of exposure for PFAS include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. While ingestion of PFAS is the most common route of exposure, scientists are finding that inhalation and dermal absorption are important routes of exposure. The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that people working with PFAS “may be exposed to PFAS by inhaling them, getting them on their skin, and swallowing them.”15 Moreover, recent work shows that firefighters can be exposed to PFAS through “ingestion or inhalation, or direct contact with the skin and dermal absorption.”16 Recent studies have shown OF EXPOSURE SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, no. 2, (2018), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30470793/. 6 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), 39 (May 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 05/documents/pfoa_health_advisory_final_508.pdf. 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and COVID-19, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health- effects/index.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2021). 8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-024-01074-2 9 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572100024001807 10 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances PFAS), https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/pfas/index.html 11 https://pfasproject.com/pfas-toxic-database/ 12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14928 13 https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/pfos-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-or-perfluorooctane-sulfonic-acid 14https://curate.nd.edu/articles/thesis/Development_of_Analytical_Methods_for_Highly_Selective_and_Sensitive_A nalysis_of_Compounds_Relevant_to_Human_Health_and_the_Environment/24869502 15 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health- effects/exposure.html#:~:text=Workers%20may%20be%20exposed%20to,your%20body%20through%20your%20s kin. 16 https://www.sffcpf.org/wp -content/uploads/2020/06/6.23.2020-DR-PEASLEE-STUDY-ANOTHER-PATHYWAY- FOR-FIREFIGHTER-EXPOSURE-TO-PFAS-FIREFIGHTER-TEXTILES.pdf 3 that some PFAS can migrate from car seat fabric to sweat, showing a potential dermal exposure route.17 Finally, PEER conducted a preliminary study which indicates that children playing on artificial turf do pick PFAS up on their skin.18 Additional research is being conducted on this issue. There are per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in artificial turf. In 2019, scientists from PEER and The Ecology Center discovered PFAS in the blades and backing of artificial turf. Since then, artificial turf manufacturers and consultants have conceded that PFAS are added to the machines to assist in the extrusion of the hot plastic, but PFAS are also used as “a slip agent that is intentionally added to the molten hydrocarbons to make the plastic grass blades free of defects.”19 In other words, PFAS are used in the base material itself. In fact, every sample of dozens of artificial turf samples, regardless of the manufacturer, shows PFAS20 in the grass blades, the backing, and sometimes the shock pad and the infill. Moreover, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedures (SPLPs) show that these PFAS leach off the fields into surrounding waters; indeed, 12 ppt of just six PFAS will leach off a brand new field.21,22 Landscape architects/consultants often promise that certification from the turf manufacturer shows that PFAS are not used in the manufacturing of the artificial turf system. This is not true. The artificial turf industry claimed for years that they did not use PFAS, and we now know that they do. A bill proposing to ban artificial turf containing PFAS in California led to the Synthetic Turf Council testifying that: The bill a (sic) ban on the sale of artificial turf containing intentionally added PFAS on January 1, 2024 to certain public entities and by January 1, 2025 for all sales in California. These dates do not provide enough time for manufacturers and suppliers to develop viable alternatives for the market place…23 This testimony is a clear admission that all artificial turf contains PFAS. Certification from the industry itself claiming the products are PFAS-free will not protect a town or city from contamination. Landscape architects/consultants also often state one or more of the following: the synthetic turf system shall be considered “PFAS free” according to REACH and/or California’s Prop 65; 17 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120361650?via%3Dihub 18 https://peer.org/pfas-in-artificial-turf-coats-players-skin/ 19 https://oakbluffs.zoom.us/rec/play/XRPkH- Yd8joprhyIovKEPo3SpdVyri6t5Intk1wSyaXPB10ZXZ6U_IUjX9npl9X4DduJgE7gjIndVKMS.qSRjKd7F9cH_sF- e?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=oO_jk5lWTT-Y7W- V3an6Yw.1652118740167.3adaa7e26df2bb777484f4cc1217465c&_x_zm_rhtaid=887 20 Dr. Graham Peaslee and Kristen Mello, NEWMOA Conference, April 6, 2022 21 Id. 22 https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/2021-02-26%20%28TurfAnalysisReport_FINAL%29.pdf 23 June 21, 2023 letter from Melanie Taylor, President & CEO, Synthetic Turf Council to California Senator Ben Allen; copy available upon request 4 the turf system shall be non-detect (ND) for 30 PFAS compounds tested via EPA Method 537 Modified; or they will provide a statement from the vendor that the turf does not contain and is not manufactured with PFAS. These statements show a lack of understanding of PFAS, its regulation, toxicity, and testing regimens. First, REACH and Prop 65 do not regulate the same PFAS chemicals that many states regulate. Second, PFAS chemistry is complicated, and precursor PFAS can have terminal end products that are regulated PFAS themselves; therefore, the best way to protect surrounding soil and water is to prohibit any PFAS in the turf materials. To protect themselves, cities and towns should require: 1) all components of the turf, including infill, should be tested using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) acid treatment before testing for targeted not total organic fluorine) PFAS24; 2) those tests should be done by an independent laboratory with low detection limits; and 3) any amount of targeted PFAS should be prohibited. Even minute amounts of PFAS are dangerous. In April of 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final drinking water limits for six PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.25 The limits are 4 ppt for both PFOA and PFOS individually, but EPA also proposed health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) of zero because there is no dose below which either chemical is considered safe.”26 Now that these proposed regulations are finalized, all states will have to comply with them. Given that we are seeing these PFAS leaching off artificial turf, it is important to assess the impacts to the groundwater, surface water, and soils from the PFAS in these products. Indeed, Dr Graham Peaslee of Notre Dame University estimates that one artificial turf field will leach 12 mg of PFAS/year, which in turn will contaminate roughly 800,000 gallons of water. It appears that as a field ages and is subject to ultraviolet light, abrasion, and acidic rain, even more PFAS will leach off. Legal liability issues should be considered, as municipalities can be considered a responsible party in the contamination of drinking water wells, surface water, groundwater, and soils from artificial turf. Artificial turf does not save water. Proponents of artificial turf, particularly in drought stricken areas, often tout the water-saving properties of artificial turf. A 2017 study in New Mexico concluded that “in order to provide a cool, playable surface, irrigation amounts for artificial turf are greater than for natural warm-season turf” (emphasis added).27 This study was confirmed in 2020 when researchers found that “that the amount of water required to maintain [artificial turf] temperatures at levels comparable to irrigated [natural turf] over a 24-h period exceed the water requirements of Bermuda grass [natural turf] in the same environment.”28 In fact, a member of the Synthetic Turf Council claims that irrigation systems for artificial turf must be “over - engineered” and that “a large amount of water has to be dumped evenly across the whole field — 24 SPLP tests measure materials that leach off the field due to rainfall; it measures organic and inorganic compounds present in the artificial turf system, and reveals what will enter the soil, groundwater, or nearby surface waters. 25 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas-npdwr_prepubfederalregisternotice_4.8.24.pdf 26 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/29/2023-05471/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water- regulation-rulemaking 27 https://scisoc.confex.com/crops/2017am/webprogram/Handout/Paper106290/Ahmed%20Kanaan.pdf 28 Kanaan, A. et al., Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf, J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(10): 05020004 5 and quickly because players will want to play immediately. And the cooling effect only lasts about an hour, maybe less.”29 Therefore, it is important for cities and towns to consider recent scientific studies regarding the necessity of watering artificial turf to maintain cool enough temperatures to play. So-called “organic” infills are not necessarily safe from a heat or chemical perspective. We are now hearing landscape architects/consultants saying that if they use one of the “organic” infills – like BrockFILL, coconut husks, walnut shells, and the like – the temperature of the field will be 20 to 40 degrees lower than those artificial turf fields with crumb rubber infill. This is not true. While using infill other than crumb rubber can reduce the temperature of artificial turf by a few degrees, it is not a significant reduction. One recent study concluded that, “High surface temperatures have been attributed to the black crumb rubber infills, and different alternative infills were tested but with only small changes observed ”30 (emphasis added). Another study concluded that, “synthetic turf infill does not affect surface temperature as much as fibres.”31 In addition, another researcher concluded: Although it is common to blame the sunlight’s interaction with the black crumb rubber for the hot surface, the fibers also significantly contribute to a field’s temperature. Anyone who has spent time working with traditional (non-infilled) Astroturf-type surfaces can tell you that those fields also got extremely hot and they do not contain any crumb rubber…it is obvious that there is no “magic bullet” available to dramatically lower the surface temperature of synthetic turf. Reductions of five or even ten degrees offer little comfort when temperatures can still exceed 150° F.32 These “organic” infills are not organic as organic food certified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); while the word “organic” sounds non-toxic, it is not necessarily. Indeed, a 2021 study33 conducted for Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, found that BrockFILL, one of the more popular organic infills, contained: Barium levels of 112 µg/L (ppb); Cadmium at a concentration of 0.042 mg/kg (ppm); Selenium at concentrations of 0.656 mg/kg (ppm); Zinc at concentrations of 85 µg/L (ppb); Phenol at a concentration of 6.9 mg/kg (ppm) 29 https://www.parksandrecbusiness.com/articles/2016/10/part-2-watering-synthetic-turf 30 Gustin, M., et al, Modelling Surface Temperatures on 3G Artificial Turf, Presented at the 12th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 26–29 March 2018. Published: 13 February 2018 31 Thomsa, A. W. et al., Models for predicting surface temperatures on synthetic turf playing surfaces, Procedia Engineering 72 ( 2014 ) 895 – 900 32 Serensits, T.J. Is there any way to cool synthetic turf? SportsTurf 2011, 27, 20–22. https://sturf.lib.msu.edu/article/2011jun20.pdf 33 https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/2021-02-26%20%28TurfAnalysisReport_FINAL%29.pdf 6 2-methylphenol (o-cresol) and 3-methylphenol (m-cresol) at concentrations of 8.8 µg/L and 16 µg/L (ppb), respectively; 2,4-dimethylphenol at a concentration of 1.8 µg/L (ppb); and Benzyl alcohol at a concentration of 15 µg/L (ppb). Therefore, it is important to consider that these alternative infills do not significantly reduce the heat island effect, and that they may contain chemicals of concern. Artificial turf results in greenhouse gas emissions. Recent research shows that “the substitution of artificial grass for natural grass contributes to global warming.”34 Additionally: artificial grass reaches significantly greater temperatures than those reached by natural grass under the same meteorological conditions... artificial grass creates an additional amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere. With the number of nationwide artificial grass installations, a typical result yields an additional energy deposited into the atmosphere during moderately warm summer days of 10 to 20 gigawatts.35 More recent research conducted this year states that artificial turf “can significantly increase ground surface temperatures and consequently increase ambient air temperatures near the ground as well as its surroundings.”36 Indeed, the scientists conclude that, “[c]oncerning climate mitigation, replacing natural ground with heat-absorbent artificial turf may be counter- productive.”37 It is also important to note that EPA considers artificial turf to be an impervious surface,38 which exacerbates runoff and contamination of adjacent waterways. This is especially critical with climate change bringing frequent torrential rain (rain bombs) and other storms. The majority of existing artificial turf studies focus on the dangers of crumb rubber infill. Most studies often cited by proponents of artificial turf were conducted before PFAS was discovered in the products in 2019, and recent studies showing risk or harm are often not included. Therefore, any study on the health effects of artificial turf conducted prior to 2019 will not assess risks from PFAS. Artificial turf results in the discharge of microplastics. Both the grass blades of the plastic turf and infill migrate off the field and get into soils and waters. Hundreds of pounds of microplastics shed off these fields each year, despite industry’s claims that they do not break.39 In fact, research from Sweden indicates that microplastics coming off artificial turf fields is the second largest source of microplastics in the environment.40 Recent research shows that fibers from artificial grass accounted for 15% of plastic pieces larger than 5 millimeters in all microplastics within 1 kilometer of the shore; they found 213,200 pieces of artificial turf floating 34 Golden, L.M., Sustainability and Climate Change. Dec 2021.436-449. http://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2021.0038 35 Id. 36 Shi, Y. and C.Y. Jim, Developing a Thermal Suitability Index to assess artificial turf applications for various site- weather and user-activity scenarios, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 2017 (2022). 37 Id. 38 https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/2016fpd/appendix-a-2016-ma-sms4-gp-mod.pdf 39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8OLBfWmt7g&t=2s 40 https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1549783/FULLTEXT01.pdf 7 in water per square kilometer.41 PFAS and other toxic chemicals will migrate with these microplastics and contaminate nearby soil and waters. Artificial turf cannot currently be recycled. There are currently no artificial turf recycling facilities in the United States, and old fields are being unceremoniously dumped all over the country.42 Recently, landscape architects/consultants are claiming there are artificial turf recycling facilities in Pennsylvania and Texas. The facility in Pennsylvania is not operating, and in fact has been cited for environmental violations.43 The facility in Texas is an “advanced recycling” facility run by Exxon; turf will be “recycled” via pyrolysis, which means it will be burned.44 This pyrolysis results in intensive energy and water use, and spews toxic chemicals into the air. It should not be called “recycling.” Artificial turf providers should be required to specifically disclose what will happen to the tons of PFAS -laden plastic at the end of the field’s life. Artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. When full lifecycle costs (i.e., installation, maintenance, and disposal/replacement) are considered, artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. In 2016, the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) did a comparison of costs of artificial turf versus natural grass, based on real world examples, and concluded that, “In nearly all scenarios, the full life-cycle cost of natural turf is lower than the life-cycle cost of a synthetic turf field for an equivalent area.”45 Athletes experience more non-contact injuries on artificial turf. Contrary to industry-funded studies, independent research finds that children and athletes have higher injury rates on artificial turf. For example, a 2024 study examining the risk of concussions found “significantly greater impact deceleration on synthetic turf compared to the natural grass surfaces .”46 Scientists concluded that, “natural grass fields are a softer playing surface compared to synthetic turf fields”47 which correlates with a higher rate of lower extremity injuries and concussions. It is important to note that these scientists also concluded that: There is a misconception that one of the benefits of synthetic turf over natural grass is that synthetic turf is maintenance free. Routine maintenance practices such as raising matted-down fibers, infill restoration, and paint and debris removal, may be required even weekly depending on field usage48 (emphasis added). 41 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749123010965 42 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/artificial-turf-fields-are-piling-no-recycling-fix/603874/ 43 https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/environment/2023/03/20/pa-officials-say-turf-recycler-is-violating- environmental-laws/69995371007/ 44 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/10/exxon-advanced-recycling-plastic-environment 45 https://www.turi.org/content/download/10395/173557/file/Cost%20Artificial%20Turf.%20September%202016.pdf 46 Villanueva NC, Chun IKH, Fujiwara AS, Leibovitch ER, Yamamoto BE, Yamamoto LG. Impact Deceleration Differences on Natural Grass Versus Synthetic Turf High School Football Fields . Hawaii J Health Soc Welf. 2024 Jan;83(1):4-9. PMID: 38223462; PMCID: PMC10782390. 47 Id. 48 Id. 8 Conclusion. Given the PFAS that leaches off artificial turf, the backing, and the infill, together with the migration of microplastics, the inability to recycle the fields at end of life, the contribution to climate change, and the intense water use, cities and towns should seriously consider the installation of grass fields. It appears that all artificial turf contains PFAS, including one of the most toxic (PFO A). Because we only discovered PFAS in artificial turf three years ago, there have been no studies investigating health impacts to athletes using the fields from these PFAS. This absence of evidence does not mean that it is safe for people to use the fields; it merely means it has not yet been studied. However, we do know that even minute quantities of PFAS are dangerous to human health; and we do know that the PFAS in the fields leaches off into groundwater, soils, and drinking water. Kyla Bennett, PhD, JD Director, Science Policy Chris Balestra From: Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 12:01 PM To: Abby Homer; Chris Balestra Subject: FW: Cornell's artificial turf projects Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph (607) 273-1721 Option 1 www.townithacany.gov TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK From: Murray Brian McBride <mbm7@cornell.edu> Sent: Wednesday,July 3, 2024 10:03 AM To:Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department<clerks@townithacany.gov>; pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Subject: Cornell's artificial turf projects I am addressing this letter to the city and town planning boards regarding the artificial turf athletic field projects proposed for Tower Road and the East Hill Plaza area in Cornell University's "Long Range Vision" Plan. I am a recently retired Cornell professor of soil and environmental science in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), and am very concerned with these plans to install large areas of plastic turf on the central campus and adjacent areas. Numerous issues have been raised by environmental health experts about potential dangers to the health of athletes playing on these plastic turf fields.The dangers arise from greater susceptibility to injury as well as exposure to toxic chemicals in the plastics and infill material (often crumb rubber from "recycled" tires) by dermal contact and/or inhalation and ingestion of microplastics and other fine particles. I have often observed, when watching football and baseball games, the fine black rubber particles flying up into the air as athletes' feet and bodies impact artificial turf fields. There is little doubt that athletes are ingesting and inhaling some of these microparticles, particles that may contain heavy metals as well as carcinogenic chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Mr. J. Peters, a risk assessor representing Haley and Aldrich, the consulting firm working with Cornell on the athletic field projects, claimed in the 6/25 Ithaca city planning board meeting that these toxic chemicals from crumb rubber, even when absorbed by the lungs, pose no significant risk to the athletes.This seemingly confident statement was based on risk assessment. It is important to recognize that risk assessments are models, often very complex models, and in my experience do not have a strong track record for accuracy. They are only as good as the validity of the data and assumptions entered into them. A statement on the website of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) suggests a much less confident assessment of the safety of crumb rubber i Although previous research studies have not shown health risks from playing on fields and playgrounds with tire crumb rubber, these studies were limited and did not completely consider various health concerns" This statement, which reflects uncertainty about the present knowledge of the dangers of crumb rubber to athletes' health, should cause concern. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that the health risks posed by crumb rubber to athletes playing frequently on synthetic turf fields are as yet not well known. However, it is clear that athletes playing on these fields are directly exposed to toxic chemicals imbedded in fine particulates by inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. Other considerations related to the well-being of athletes playing on these fields include the fact that synthetic plastic fields reach much hotter surface temperatures in sunny weather than natural grass fields. This is not a trivial concern considering the summer temperatures we have been experiencing in Ithaca recently. In addition, most athletes when surveyed much prefer playing on natural grass fields for reasons related to risk of injury and comfort. From an environmental point of view, synthetic turf materials have a very unfavorable carbon footprint. Not only does the manufacture of the plastic materials of synthetic turfs require fossil fuels and the release of CO2to the atmosphere, but the only feasible means of disposal of degraded synthetic turfs at this time is to incinerate or pyrolyze them with the release of even more CO2.The estimated lifetime of a synthetic turf field before disposal is about 8-10 years. Landfilling these turfs results in leachates that may contain numerous chemicals such as plasticizers and PFAS. Contrast this with natural turfgrass fields, which are net absorbers of atmospheric CO2, can be reconditioned, and never need to be disposed of. In my college at Cornell, we have a turfgrass program with the expertise to create and maintain natural turfgrass fields, and I am perplexed as to why natural grass playing fields have not been part of Cornell's plan. Many professional sports stadia are moving away from synthetic turf toward natural grass for a number of the reasons I am presenting here. Even stadia in climates colder than Ithaca have successfully maintained natural grass playing fields. Other environmental threats to be considered are the release of microplastics from the inevitable gradual weathering and disintegration of the plastics in the artificial turf.These microplastics, in addition to the infill crumb rubber particles, can migrate offsite by wind or by runoff during intense rain events. On outdoor fields, it would not be possible to prevent birds and other small wild animals from ingesting these potentially toxic particles. Synthetic particles from artificial outdoor turf fields have also recently been shown to contribute substantially to microplastic pollution found in surface waters. In addition, crumb rubber particles have been demonstrated to release, upon leaching by water, chemicals that are toxic to various aquatic organisms, with zinc being at particularly high concentrations in leachate.The crumb rubber content of artificial turf is not low—approximately 6 pounds of this toxic material per square foot ! There are additional numerous chemicals such as plasticizers that leach out of the plastic components of artificial turf. Mr. J. Peters, the risk assessor representing Haley and Aldrich, acknowledged in the 6/25 Ithaca city planning board meeting that the synthetic turf also contains PFAS polymers, claiming that these polymers are not the lower molecular weight ('bad") PFAS that have received so much attention for their toxicity, but instead are completely inert and non-toxic. That is, Mr. Peters appears to be assuming that the more toxic forms of PFAS will never be released into the environment from the artificial turf field. However, fluoropolymers do initially contain a low level of leachable low molecular weight PFAS, which could be an immediate source for surface and groundwater contamination. In addition, the partial and slow decomposition of PFAS polymers to lower molecular weight PFAS in artificial turf by the long-term exposure to ultraviolet light may be possible. However, as far as I have been able to determine, the potential for photodegradation of fluoropolymers has not been tested under realistic field conditions. In any event, there is disagreement at this time about the potential toxicity of polymeric PFAS, with chemical industry scientists claiming they are benign (see Korzeniowski et al., 2022, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 19, 326-354) and 2 independent scientists stating that "the evidence ... does not find a scientific rationale for concluding that fluoropolymers are of low concern for environmental and human health" (Lohmann et al., 2020, Environmental Science and Technology, 54, 12820-12828). Again, uncertainty about how these persistent chemicals behave in the environment and what effects they may have on human health should persuade us to adopt a precautionary approach and limit the use of these synthetic chemicals to the extent possible. To conclude, I believe there are many negatives associated with artificial turf playing fields compared to natural grass fields. The installation of additional synthetic turf playing fields by Cornell is therefore ill-advised given the present uncertainty regarding the extent of risk to the health of athletes and to the environment. Sincerely, Dr. Murray McBride Emeritus Professor of Soil Chemistry 3 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, I would like to address a separate matter I noticed upon the “Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility Additional Materials” dated July 9, 2024, submitted by Cornell University to both the City and Town of Ithaca Planning Boards, which is relevant to the new synthetic proposal on Game Farm Road at hand. In my assessment, interpretations of reports and scientific studies presented in the document warrant further scrutiny. We begin by addressing one salient example before examining additional cases in subsequent communications. In the paragraph in Cornell’s submission below, Studies indicate that synthetic turf gets warmer than natural grass field surfaces. However, air temperatures above the field are only marginally warmer than natural grass fields, and they do not emit heat after the sun goes down. The letter submitted by Haley Aldrich in the April 19, 2024 supplemental submission references a 2017 study...which shows that (1) synthetic turf fields can have higher temperatures than natural grass fields on sunny and cloud days, and that there is essentially no difference in field surface temperatures on overcast days; (2) there is a minimal difference in air temperature above synthetic and natural grass fields on sunny days; (3) synthetic turf fields and the air above the fields heat and cool more rapidly than natural grass; and (4) synthetic turf fields do not 'hold heat' after the sun goes down.” Cornell appears to be referencing the study: Jim, C.Y. “Intense Summer Heat Fluxes in Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment.” Landscape and Urban Planning 157 (2017): 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.012. Upon reviewing the original study (attached as pdf), we believe the interpretation presented in Cornell’s submission does not fully reflect Jim’s findings. Specifically: 1. Surface Temperatures: Jim’s study highlights that artificial turf surfaces can reach extreme temperatures on sunny days, up to 72.4°C (162.3°F), compared to 36.6°C 97.9°F) for natural grass. While the difference is smaller on overcast days, the study emphasizes the risks of extreme heat under sunny conditions, which are more relevant to typical play. 2. Air Temperatures: While air temperatures at higher elevations may show marginal differences, Jim’s study notes that near-ground air temperatures above synthetic turf are significantly elevated due to heat transfer from the surface. This localized warming can have a direct impact on athletes and is not addressed in Cornell’s summary. 3. Heating and Cooling Dynamics: Jim’s findings confirm that synthetic turf heats and cools more rapidly than natural grass. However, the rapid heating during peak sunlight hours is linked to increased heat stress risks, a context that is not emphasized in Cornell’s interpretation. 4. Nighttime Cooling: The study observes that synthetic turf cools faster after sunset, but this characteristic is largely irrelevant to the heat-related risks athletes face during the day. Cornell’s emphasis on overcast conditions and nighttime cooling may not provide a complete picture of the study’s findings. A more balanced interpretation would acknowledge the significant risks of heat exposure on sunny days highlighted in this study. This example is part of a broader set of concerns regarding the interpretation of studies in Cornell’s submissions for the Meinig Fieldhouse Project including two synthetic turf. We will address additional examples in future communications to ensure that decision-makers have a clear and accurate understanding of the available scientific evidence. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi OPINION CROSS CURRENTS FRIDAYS FEBRUARY 14, 2025 5 MIN READ Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Our Brains? New research on microplastics in brains reminds us that while scientists compile safety data, our leaders should still act BY MEGHA SATYANARAYANA EDITED BY DAN VERGANO Richard Thompson, director of the Marine Institute of Plymouth analyzes nurdles and other micro-plastics in a laboratory on February 27, 2023. Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 1 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Our brains are full of plastic. This was the fun news I read earlier this week while picking up dinner take- out, packed in plastic containers, crammed in a plastic bag and accompanied by Styrofoam cups. Great, I thought, convenience culture is killing us. But is it? This is the problem with the slew of research nding microscopic shards of plastic in our arteries, kidneys and livers, the ndings that our oceans, food, soil and air are teeming with tiny bits of Tupperware. Scientists still don’t know what this plastic is doing to us. And because research takes time, while scientists are trying to answer question, we just keep inhaling, eating and drinking tiny pieces of plastic. Why? Regulatory action has never really stopped the U.S. plastics industry from cranking out more plastic, even as clean air and water advocates try to ght the industry’s pollution problems in court and locals wage grassroots wars to slow the permitting of more plants that spew all those toxic chemicals. And now, back in o ce, is a president beholden to fossil fuel interests (where petroleum and natural gas are plastics precursors), a leader who uses his new powers to demand the use of plastic straws, and an administration that is hell-bent on crippling EPA’s mission to keep us safe rather than empowering it. Meanwhile, we do not know what all this plastic is doing to us. And no one currently in charge seems to care. Plastic Opinion Cross Currents Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 2 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Everything that goes into our bodies gets ltered through our livers and kidneys, so maybe it’s not a big surprise that bits of plastic nd their way into those organs. Same with our hearts; microplastics end up in our blood and can get stuck in our clogged arteries. But our brains are designed to keep things out, through something called the blood-brain barrier. The researchers behind the brain plastics study think the tiny shards of plastic hitch a ride on fat molecules to get inside brain cells. And what’s worse is how much microplastics the researchers think might be in a whole human brain: 10 grams. Imagine 2.5 teaspoons of sugar. Now sub in plastic. Gross. They looked at preserved brains from about a decade ago and compared them to brains from last year. The fresher brains had more plastic in them than the older brains. And yes, they accounted for all the plastic needed to hold and manipulate the brains in their study, just in case those tubes and such were leaching plastic. So, year after year, surrounded by more and more plastic, our bodies are at minimum, storage tanks, and at worst, under an unrelenting attack. How is this even happening? Chemistry. Capitalism. Convenience culture. To make plastic, petroleum re neries isolate hydrocarbons and then crack those hydrocarbons into even smaller compounds like ethylene or propylene. They then do a little chemistry to stick those smaller compounds into repeating structures called polymers. These polymers then juiced with other chemicals that give them di erent properties, to mold them into plastics that are bendy, plastics that are hard, plastics that are resistant to heat and other things. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 3 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Each year, millions of tons of plastic waste ends up in the ocean, with some plastics taking an estimated 1,000 years to decompose. Over time, larger pieces of plastic break down into microplastics, which can accumulate in marine life and possibly enter the human food chain. puttapon/Getty Images In the face of renewable energy and electric cars charging up all over the country, lowering demands for gas, this is how our fossil fuel industry diversi es. And to great success; the U.S. produced 130 billion pounds of plastics in 2023. Chemists try to nd cleaner and greener ways to make (and break down) plastic, but its manufacture is a dirty process. So, here we are, surrounded by this stu that will never go away, slowly building up inside us. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 4 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Thousands of plastics exist, each with its own recipe of chemicals. Since the EPA generally regulates individual chemicals, and not groups of chemicals based on what they do, going after every single component of plastics is basically impossible. Instead, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Biden administration started the process of regulating chemicals with known health e ects that are also plastics precursors and additives. But this process could take years, and its fate looks dicey in the new administration. EPA’s single-chemical approach is what tobacco researchers called in a recent Scienti c American piece a whack-a-mole strategy. A tweak here, a tweak there, and now EPA has one more plastics mole to whack. So many moles, a push to build more re neries, and our general inability to recycle plastic, and here we are, slowly becoming Homo plasticus. Scary, yes. But dangerous? Probably. There are oodles of studies that show that microplastics cause biochemical changes in cells and animals that we also see in humans who have various illnesses. All that said, cells are not people, and animals are models for what we think is happening in people. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 5 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 But recently, a group of Italian researchers followed 257 people who had plaque in their carotid arteries. They found that 20 percent of the people in their study who had microplastic-laden plaque had had a heart attack, stroke or had died after almost three years, compared to 7.5 percent of the people who didn’t. In studies of cells, those with microplastics in them also tended to show biochemical signatures of in ammation. And those people who had microplastics in their carotid arteries also tended to show some of those same signatures more often than the people who didn’t. So, yes, while correlation does not equal causation, these are fairly alarming signs. Yet we live in a country that believes wholeheartedly that we just keep doing what we are doing while we gure it all out. Meanwhile people in the shadows of plastics plants in Louisiana get cancer. Fish, the meat that was supposed to save our hearts, is teeming with plastic that we know now can end up clogging our arteries. The brains of people with dementia are full of plastic. So, recycle all your plastic containers! Cancel your food delivery! Take bags to the grocery store! All wonderfully insidious ways that we shift the responsibility of environmental calamity onto individuals. Don’t x the problem of wasteful and destructive plastics chemistry, just tell people to stop using the product. Meanwhile, entire countries are trying to stop using so much plastic. And some places in the U.S. ban certain plastics. We could be like Maine, which makes large companies that use plastic help pay to deal with the waste. The responsibility for plastic is not just the consumer’s. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 6 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Popular Stories I see pictures all the time of beaches covered in plastic pebbles, land lls over owing with water bottles, and giant dumps of technology products with their sad beige plastic shells. Chemistry is a beautiful thing. When it comes to plastic, when are we going to hold the petrochemical industry accountable for this ugliness? This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scienti c American. RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS MEGHA SATYANARAYANA is chief opinion editor at Scientific American, where she writes the column Cross Currents. She is a former scientist who has worked at several news outlets, including the Detroit Free Press and STAT. She was a Knight-Wallace Fellow, a cohort member of Poynter’s Leadership Academy for Women in Digital Media and a Maynard 200 Fellow. More by Megha Satyanarayana Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 7 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Cornell’s Synthetic Turf Expansion vs. Local Bans Across the U.S.: Why Is Ithaca Ignoring the Risks? February 18, 2025 To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, I am submitting this comment in opposition to the continued expansion of synthetic turf on Cornell’s campus. While municipalities across the country are banning or restricting synthetic turf due to well-documented environmental and health risks, Cornell is charging ahead with an unchecked buildout—ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence and public concern. Key Examples of Bans and Restrictions: Georgia (2025): Just passed this month the Safer States Act (HB 9), prohibiting the sale and distribution of artificial turf on state property due to toxic flame retardants. California: Millbrae (2023): Banned artificial turf due to environmental and health concerns. Massachusetts: Oak Bluffs (2024): Board of Health unanimously banned synthetic turf fields due to PFAS water contamination risks. Wayland, Concord, and Sharon: Passed multi-year moratoriums prohibiting synthetic turf on town-owned properties. Colorado (2024): State law prohibits artificial turf on most commercial, industrial, and state properties as a water conservation measure. Washington, D.C. (2017-Present): Moratorium on crumb rubber artificial turf remains in effect. European Chemicals Agency (EU, 2023): Identified synthetic turf as a leading source of microplastic pollution, leading to a ban on crumb rubber infill. These bans and restrictions are based on independent science, peer-reviewed studies, and authoritative reports confirming the dangers of synthetic turf. PFAS contamination, microplastic pollution, athlete injuries, and long-term environmental harm have led communities to reject artificial fields. For more municipal bans, moratoriums, restrictions on synthetic turf, and links to sources, please see the list in a separate pdf submitted together with this comment. Also see Zero Waste Ithaca’s bibliography section titled “Bans, Moratoriums, and Legislative Actions,” page 105-109 (Zero Waste Ithaca, 2025). Why Is the Town of Ithaca Moving Forward with This Expansion? Despite this growing national movement, Cornell is continuing an aggressive expansion, with plans for at least four additional synthetic fields on Game Farm Road. This would bring the total number of artificial turf fields on campus to at least 14, according to a 2015 document we recently uncovered (Cornell University, 2015, Page 7), far beyond even the 12 total estimated in earlier discussions. Yet, at the January 7th Planning Board meeting, when community members raised this and other issues, they were falsely accused of lying by a Cornell University representative. The real numbers are in Cornell’s own documents. Cornell’s justification relies on reports from consulting firms like Tetra Tech—the same firm whose analysis was rejected in Oak Bluffs when the town chose to ban synthetic turf. If that analysis was not deemed sufficient to justify artificial turf in Oak Bluffs, why is it being relied upon here? Cornell’s Strategy: Avoiding Science, Attacking Standing Cornell’s legal arguments do a poor job in refuting the environmental and health risks of synthetic turf. Instead, they focus on attacking standing—arguing that the affected community has no right to challenge their synthetic turf expansion. This is not a debate over scientific merit; it is a procedural maneuver designed to avoid accountability. But environmental harm doesn’t stop at property lines. Microplastic emissions from synthetic turf don’t stay within Cornell’s fields—they contaminate our air, soil, and water. The European Chemicals Agency, and multiple peer-reviewed studies confirm that synthetic turf is a major source of microplastic pollution. (Zhu et al. 2024; De Haan et al. 2023; ECHA 2020; Bo et al. 2020; IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute 2016). Where Is the Environmental Impact Assessment? All we are asking for is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This is the bare minimum for a project of this scale and potential harm. Why is Cornell so resistant to conducting an EIA? Our coalition has submitted a 151-page bibliography of peer-reviewed studies, independent science, and authoritative reports—including sources from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and other major media outlets. These are credible, widely respected sources. Yet, Cornell continues to dismiss our evidence while submitting a mere 12 references Cornell University, 2024, page 33-34) —three of which have direct conflicts of interest or industry funding, and two of which are reports by hired consulting firms. The Town’s Responsibility The Town of Ithaca has a duty to protect public health and the environment. While cities and states across the U.S. are banning synthetic turf, why is Ithaca allowing Cornell to expand it unchecked? The town must stop enabling this project and instead require a full, science-based assessment of its long-term impact. Sincerely, Emily Jernigan References: Bø, S. M., R. A. Bohne, B. Aas, and L. M. Hansen. “Material Flow Analysis for Norway's Artificial Turfs.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588, 1.1–1.14 2020): 042068. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/4/042068. This paper claims that synthetic turf is the second-largest source of microplastic emissions in Norway. By analyzing the material flow of synthetic turfs in Norway, the study reveals that a significant number of rubber granules and grass fibers are unaccounted for and may have been lost to the environment. Cornell University. Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, June 2015. https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect and_Campus_Planning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Ath letic%20Complex%20Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/259jz3pz0tmf65hvkyrcq/Game-Farm-Road-Athletic-Co mplex-Facilities-Master-Plan.pdf?rlkey=suuiaaeufm1zrzqml5cjjo0y4&st=vb9anf6c&dl= 0 This 2015 master plan outlines the vision for the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex, consolidating athletic fields and infrastructure. Notably, on page 7, the plan includes six synthetic turf projects within the proposed sports complex, indicating Cornell’s long-term plan on expanding artificial turf use on campus. Cornell University. “Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility: Additional Materials.” April 19, 2024. https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/16866/Meinig-Fieldhouse-Additiona l-Materials-041924-rsz De Haan, William P., Rocío Quintana, César Vilas, Andrés Cózar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. “The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments.” Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). “Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restrictions on Intentionally-Added Microplastics.” Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/a513b793-dd84-d83a-9c06-e7a11580f366 (Page 63 for microplastic reference) IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. "Tire Wear Foremost Source of Microplastics." Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, March 29, 2016. https://www.ivl.se/english/ivl/press/press-releases/2016-03-29-tire-wear-foremost-source- of-microplastics.html. Zero Waste Ithaca. The Case Against Artificial Turf Expansion at Cornell: A Bibliography. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i-cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO2 6R-Q/edit?tab=t.0 Accessed February 18, 2025. Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. “A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution.” Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Municipalities with Artificial Turf Bans, Moratoriums, or Restrictions Updated: February 18, 2025) California Millbrae, California City of Millbrae, California. "Prohibition of Artificial Turf." Millbrae Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.65, October 24, 2023. https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/276/Prohibition-of-Artificial-Turf The City of Millbrae voted to ban artificial turf in October 2023. Los Angeles, California CBS News Los Angeles. "LA Council Committee Moves Synthetic Grass Ban Proposal Forward." June 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/la-council-committee-moves-synthetic-grass- ban-proposal-forward/ In June 2024, a Los Angeles City Council committee advanced a proposal to ban synthetic grass citywide. Colorado State of Colorado Colorado General Assembly. SB24-005: Prohibit Landscaping Practices for Water Conservation. Approved March 15, 2024, effective August 7, 2024. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-005 This law prohibits the installation of nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, and invasive plants on most commercial, industrial, and state government properties, including medians, parking lots, and along roads. Note: This is a statewide restriction, applying to most commercial, industrial, and state government properties. Connecticut Westport, Connecticut Vaughan, Sophie. “RTM Proactively Bans Crumb Rubber Artificial Turf.” CT Insider, December 13, 2018. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/RTM-proactively-bans-crumb-rubber-artificial-tur f-13464197.php In October 2018, Westport, Connecticut's Representative Town Meeting (RTM) unanimously passed an ordinance titled "Ordinance prohibiting the application of synthetic infill material on playing fields on town property," effectively banning the use of crumb rubber infill on town-owned fields. Schwing, John. “RTM Members Red Flag Artificial Turf as Fields of Nightmares.” Westport Journal, November 27, 2024. https://westportjournal.com/government/rtm-members-red-flag-artificial-turf-as-fields-of- nightmares/ In recent developments, members of the RTM have raised concerns about the health, safety, and environmental risks posed by artificial turf fields. Discussions are ongoing. District of Columbia Washington, D.C. District of Columbia. "§ 10–168. Moratorium on Crumb Rubber Artificial Turf." Code of the District of Columbia, enacted December 13, 2017. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/10-168 Note: This moratorium remains in effect as of January 2025. The District's Interagency Working Group on Artificial Turf and Playgrounds has recommended continuing this moratorium. https://dgs.dc.gov/page/artificial-turf-gmax-and-playgrounds-testing Georgia State of Georgia Georgia General Assembly. "Safer States Act." House Bill 9, enacted in February 2025. https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20252026/229787 Amending Chapter 15 of Title 25 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the law prohibits the sale and distribution of covered products containing specific chemical flame retardants, including artificial turf installed on state property, effective January 1, 2026. This law restricts the use of harmful flame retardants in various consumer products, including synthetic turf on state property, due to concerns over toxicity and environmental impact. Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts The Guardian. "Boston Bans Artificial Turf over Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Concerns." September 30, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/30/boston-bans-artificial-turf-toxic-forever- chemicals-pfas Rowley, Frankie. "Wu Blocks New Artificial Turfs in Boston Parks, Refrains from Calling It a Ban." WGBH, October 5, 2022. https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2022-10-05/wu-blocks-new-artificial-turfs-in-boston-parks-ref rains-from-calling-it-a-ban. As of January 2025, Boston has implemented a policy of self-restraint regarding artificial turf installations. In September 2022, Mayor Michelle Wu announced that the city would no longer install artificial turf containing PFAS chemicals in public parks, opting instead for natural grass surfaces wherever feasible. Concord, Massachusetts Town of Concord, Massachusetts. “Article 16: Citizen Petition—Five-Year Moratorium on the Installation of Synthetic Turf on Town Land.” Concord, MA: Town Meeting, 2022. https://concordma.gov/3049/Article-16---Citizen-Petition---Five-Yea This moratorium was adopted at the Town Meeting in 2022 and prohibits synthetic turf installation on town-owned properties for five years, from May 1, 2022, to May 1, 2027. Note: The moratorium was proposed through a citizen petition, which is a formal way for residents to request town action. In Massachusetts, a citizen petition is not automatically equivalent to an ordinance but is a method to propose actions, including bylaws or policy changes, for consideration at a town meeting. Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts Town of Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, Office of the Planning Board. “Notice of Decision May 4, 2022 RE: Special Permit Athletic Track and Synthetic Turf Field, Martha’s Vineyard High School.” https://mvrhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/OB-Planning-Board-Special-Permit-Decis ion.pdf In April 2024, the Oak Bluffs Board of Health unanimously voted to ban the installation of artificial turf playing fields within the town due to concerns over PFAS contamination. The ban applies to all artificial turf fields, regardless of size, and will remain in effect until the board decides to lift it. Sharon, Massachusetts Town of Sharon, Massachusetts. "Article III: Artificial Turf Field Moratorium." Sharon General Bylaws, adopted October 12, 2020. https://www.sharonma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif3921/f/uploads/2020_general_bylaws.pdf Town of Sharon, Massachusetts. "Article 21: Extension of Moratorium on Synthetic Fields/Artificial Turf." 2024 Annual Town Meeting Warrant, April 2, 2024. https://www.townofsharon.net/sites/g/files/vyhlif3801/f/uploads/2024_annual_town_meet ing_warrant.pdf In March 2024, Sharon extended its moratorium on synthetic turf for an additional five years, keeping it in effect until 2029. In October 2020, the Town of Sharon, Massachusetts, enacted a three-year moratorium on the installation of artificial turf on town-owned land, effective until October 2023. In March 2024, a citizen's petition was presented to the Board of Health, seeking support to extend the existing moratorium. Subsequently, during the 2024 Annual Town Meeting, Article 21 proposed extending the moratorium for an additional five years. The article outlined environmental and health concerns associated with artificial turf, including the presence of toxic chemicals and microplastics. The proposed extension aimed to continue prohibiting the installation of artificial turf on town-owned land for five more years from the effective date of the moratorium extension. As of January 2025, the moratorium has been extended until 2029. Wayland, Massachusetts Town of Wayland, Massachusetts. Chapter 95: Artificial or Synthetic Turf—Moratorium on Installation; Purpose. Adopted May 14, 2024. https://www.ecode360.com/38888159 The town extended its moratorium on artificial turf installation for another three years in May 2024. New Jersey Cape May, New Jersey City of Cape May, New Jersey. Ordinance No. 531-2024: "An Ordinance Regulating the Use of Artificial Turf in the City of Cape May." Approved May 7, 2024, effective June 4, 2024. https://www.capemaycity.com/media/Ordinances/531-2024%20Ordinance%20Regulating 20Use%20Of%20Artificial%20Turf%20In%20The%20City%20Of%20Cape%20May. pdf The ordinance bans the installation of artificial turf as a substitute for natural landscaping throughout the City of Cape May. The ban, effective June 4, 2024, aims to protect public health, the environment, and the city’s historic character.