Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Packet 2025-04-22 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday April 22, 2025, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. AGENDA Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-8 Appeal of Donald Moore, owner of 213 King Rd W, Ithaca NY 14850, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-60C. and 270-60B (Yard regulations) Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 C. requires a side yard setback of not less than 40 feet and Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60B. requires a rear yard setback of 50 feet, where the applicant is proposing to construct single family dwelling that will not comply with the side yard or rear yard setbacks as identified. The property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 37.-1-6. Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-11 Appeal of Cornell University, owners of 126 Game Farm Rd. Ithaca NY; Kimberly Van Leeuwen, Agent: is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-254 (Residential and Conservation Zones), 270-59 (Height limitations), 270-223 (Fences and walls; retaining walls). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-254 and limits signs to 32 square feet of aggregate area, limits one sign to 24 square feet, and limits the maximum freestanding sign height to 6 feet and not allow for an internally illuminated sign , where the applicant is proposing to exceed the aggregate sign area, exceed the maximum size allowed for a single sign, exceed the aggregate for all sign area, exceed the maximum height for free standing signs and is proposing to have a sign that is internally illuminated. Town of Ithaca Code 270-59 requires structures, other than a building, to not exceed 30 feet in height, where the applicant is proposing to install light poles, flag poles, and similar structures that would exceed the height limits of the Town of Ithaca Code. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 limits a fence height to 6 feet, where fencing is proposed to exceed the maximum height allowed per Town of Ithaca Code. The property is located in the Low-Density Residential District Zone, Tax Parcel Numbers: 62.-2-6 Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAS-25-3 Appeal of Cornell University, owners of 126 Game Farm Rd. Ithaca NY; Kimberly Van Leeuwen Agent: is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems) for a proposal to construct a press box building (professional building) without a sprinkler system. The property is located in the Low-Density Residential District Zone, Tax Parcel No. 62.-2-5 Public Hearing and Consider: ZBEN-25-1 Appeal of 201 Snyder Hill Rd., Owner; Brian Buttner and Justin Kimball, Agents: are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 144-5 (Residential Building Provisions). Town of Ithaca Code section 144-R501.2 requires a building to comply with the Ithaca Energy Code in a prescriptive/performance manner, where the applicant is proposing to acquire three prescriptive points, where twelve prescriptive points are required per section 144-R502, of Town of Ithaca Code, for a major renovation. The property is located in the Medium-Density Residential District Zone, Tax Parcel Number: 57.-1-8.63 *Appeal materials are available at the Town website via the “Public Meetings”. *Comments on the appeal(s) can be made in person or via ZOOM during the meeting. Comments & questions can be emailed to codes@townithacany.gov up until 3pm the day of the meeting. All comments become part of the official record. Accessing the Meeting: Youtube Live: “Town of Ithaca Public Meetings” Zoom: Meeting ID: 852-5587-1576 Zoom: Call (929) 436-2866 same meeting ID as above The Youtube recording of the meeting is archived Youtube.com/@TownofIthacaVideo. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement &Outlook Tweak to Site Plan ZBAA-25-08 From don_moore@verizon.net <don_moore@verizon.net> Date Wed 3/19/2025 6:01 PM To Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Cc Lori Kofoid <LKofoid@townithacany.gov> Marty - In preparing to stake the revised proposed corners on site,I double checked dimensions and discovered two adjustments to the dimensions on the Site Plan were required. One dimension was changed from 50.0'to 50.2',and the rear yard setback was changed from 39.4'to 38.0'. The revisions are at page 7 in the latest attachment. Thank you, Don       !! "#$ %&'!"&$*% "#$ %& 2  23 345678;GDD?H:;GCIGJ?G;KFJFLBF@=<G@@FKH:;MNOPQORJFLB?JF@GJFGJSGJD@F=EGKT;YZ[\]W\^FA:BCD;FFD=:XBCCS:BJGYF;DG?=F_@UJ:_=>FGYF;DG:;Z`aaCMMc:;?;YR:GJD:UbXXFGC@_FFH;YGYF;DG\d?;KFAF;FFD=::E=G?;K:__=S<AFA?CC;FFD=:JF@BE_?=S:BJ_:D?gFDGXXC?KGH:;G;DGCC:AU:JBX=:ZOF;=\@::;G@X:@@?ECF\v~l{oszvvltvvtmƒ‰Š„‹š—œ”š–ž£ª¥£«¨¢£¡¬¢£« ¢­¡®§¨¢¯§¡­­¨°¡¢­ª¥£±¬¡£©¨¯¨£¬¢£«¡£¬¡¬¥£¯²¤¥¦« ¡¢£¬¢³¢¬´¨¯¥¦¢«¢­¨¬¬¦¡­­¡¬¶·¤« ¡¦¡¨¬¡¦¥¤« ¢­§¡­­¨°¡¢­£¥«« ¡¢£«¡£¬¡¬¦¡ª¢¸¢¡£«¹²¥´¨¦¡ ¡¦¡¢£¨©¥£¹¬¢­«¦¢º´©¥£¹¨¯«¡¦¨©¥£¹¥¦ª¥¸²¢£°¥¤« ¢­¡®§¨¢¯§¡­­¨°¡¢­­«¦¢ª«¯²¸¦¥ ¢º¢«¡¬¶®§¨¢¯¢£¡¦¦¥¦¹¸¯¡¨­¡¢§§¡¬¢¨«¡¯²£¥©¤²« ¡­¡£¬¡¦º²«¡¯¡¸ ¥£¡»¼½¾¿À¾Á¿Â¾ÃÁĹ¥¦º²¦¡¡®§¨¢¯§¡­­¨°¡¶::JFËIFJ?Ì:;\;F=ÍD:;Ê_::JFËIFJ?Ì:;\;F=Î@DGS<ÓGJK>V<MOMVaÔaZbÓ@FCFSÍÓÓ:@FCFSË=:A;?=>GKG;S\Y:IÎ:@FDK>G;YF=:cRbbPMVPÚ úøú    ú   !ù                                                                                !"  #          !"    #                               %  &'    RE: Zoning variance for side setback issued September 2023 for 213 W King Rd From:Marty Moseley (mmoseley@townithacany.gov) To:don_moore@verizon.net; dmagnuson@townithacany.gov Cc:codes@townithacany.gov Date:Thursday, January 23, 2025 at 04:10 PM EST Don, A special approval is identified in our zoning regulations for specific uses and typically requires both the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to agree on the special approval. An extension is not considered to be a special approval. Unfortunately, we currently have approximately 10 variance requests that have been submitted and are under consideration. We are proceeding them as soon as we can, but I do not believe that I can place you on the February meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals. I would suggest submitting a variance request to be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals, so we can add you to the agenda list. Thank you, Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement Town of Ithaca 215 N Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 P: 607-273-1783 F: 607-273-1704 www.townithacany.gov The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and intended only for the individual or entity to whom or which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, alteration, or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone (607-273-1783), or by return e-mail, and delete this e-mail message. From: don_moore@verizon.net <don_moore@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 3:37 PM To: Dana Magnuson <DMagnuson@townithacany.gov> Cc: Marty Moseley <MMoseley@townithacany.gov> Subject: Re: Zoning variance for side setback issued September 2023 for 213 W King Rd Dana and Marty - 1/23/25, 5:21 PM AOL Mail - RE: Zoning variance for side setback issued September 2023 for 213 W King Rd about:blank 1/3 Project Narrative This variance, if granted, would replace and expand a variance granted September 18, 2023, which will expire prior to commencement of construction, per Z.O. Sec 270-235.J. Since this variance was granted, the house site has been cleared, a septic permit obtained, and a culvert and driveway have been roughed in. It is proposed to build a one-story single family 2-bedroom residence with a 2-car garage on the subject lot. The lot was subdivided in 1956, including the ability to locate an on- lot septic system. The home will be served by existing utilities at the road, including electric, water and natural gas. The lot has no wetlands or steep slopes, with the exception of a rise in topography along the front property line. Just beyond the rear property line, there is a fully treed large gully, and below this in elevation, steep slopes in topography that ultimately drops down to an access road to Buttermilk Falls State Park. The lot is 100’ wide, with 40’ side-yard setbacks on each side, leaving only 20’ width in which to construct a home – an unreasonable requirement. With a garage in the side yard, the setback is reduced to 15’. At the time the lot was subdivided, 10’ side-yard setbacks were required for a house, and 7’ for a garage in the side yard. The proposed development would not have required a side yard variance under the approved subdivision plan. It is proposed to locate the principal building at an angle, to enjoy the foliage of the forested area across the rear property line. The bulk of relief needed is in the southwest corner, with less relief needed in the northwest corner. The septic permit provided by Tomkins County is for a gravity septic system with sand filter and drain field. Due to the unique topography of the lot, with a high area in the center from side line to side line, it is challenging to provide the roughly 5’ drop needed from the septic tank to the drain field. This topography also creates a low area which a sizeable portion of the living area of the house would fall within if the rear yard setback is 50’. A well respected Ithaca-area excavator believes that if the house is placed to adhere to the required rear yard setback, it may be required to place the sand filter in the side or rear yards, which is undesirable. Also, 2 to 3 feet of fill will need to be added to multiple corners of the building to create reasonable grades, necessitating the importation of fill from offsite. Relocating the building rearwards utilizing a moderate reduction in the required rear yard setback will allow the septic sand filter to be placed in the front yard, as well as a reduction in the amount of fill needed to provide a livable landscape around the house. Lastly, moving the building site rearwards would provide some added flexibility in choosing an alternate septic drain site in the future. The proposed structure will blend into the wooded setting nicely, and is located to provide the least impact on neighboring uses. 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 Telephone: E-Mail: 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 If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: 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 4.Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: Rural (non-agriculture) Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Aquatic Other(Specify):Agriculture □ Urban □ Forest SEAF 2019 Parkland Page 2 of 3 a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? 6.Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape?NO YES If Yes, identify: ________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 8.a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? b.Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? NO YES 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 pr oviding potable water: _________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ______________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ NO YES archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? NO YES 13. a. Does 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 ag ency? b.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: _____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 12.a. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? b.Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for 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. April 4, 2025 Lori Kofoid, Administrative Assistant IV 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: Area Variance for proposed single family dwelling located at 213 King Road West, Tax Parcel #37.-1-6.2, Donald Moore, Owner and Applicant. Dear Ms. Kofoid: 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 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. March 7, 2025 Lori Kofoid, Administrative Assistant IV 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: Area Variance for proposed Moore New House located at 213 King Road West, Tax Parcel #37.-1-6.2, Don Moore, Owner and Applicant. Dear Ms. Kofoid: 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 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 14, 2025 Lori Kofoid, Administrative Assistant IV 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: Area Variance for proposed single family dwelling located at 213 King Road East, Tax Parcel #37.-1-6.2, Don Moore, Owner and Applicant. Dear Ms. Kofoid: 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 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. August 4, 2023 Lori Kofoid, Administrative Assistant IV 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: Area Variance for proposed new residential construction, Tax Parcel #37.-1-6.2, Donald Moore, Owner and Applicant. Dear Ms. Kofoid: 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 Filed 9/26 TOWN OF ITHACA Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2023 ZBAA-23-17 Area Variance 213 King Rd W, LDR, TP 37.-1-6.2 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Donald Moore, owner of 213 King Rd W, TP 37.- 1-6.2, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-60 C (Yard regulations) which requires a minimum side yard setback of 40’ feet where approximately 18’ 8” is proposed for construction of a single-family dwelling, with the following Conditions 1. That the home be built substantially as presented as to location, with a side yard not less 18’ from the side yard property line, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the lot was created in 1956 with a legally compliant 100’ feet width which has subsequently changed, and the natural desire to have the living area windows face the natural beauty of the area is understood, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood or to nearby properties as several houses in the area have similarly small setbacks and the proposed home has been designed and placed to minimize any impacts to the neighbors, and 3. That the request is substantial in that 40’ feet is required where 18’ feet is being granted, and 4. That there will not be any adverse environmental effects as no SEQR is required, and 5. That the hardship is self-created in that the applicant was aware of the restrictions on the property prior to purchasing the property. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes – Squires, Jung, Terry, Friedman, and Minnig ZBA Minutes 2023-09-18 (Filed 9/25) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA Zoning Board of Appeals September 18, 2023 Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Connor Terry, and Stuart Friedman Absent: Mark Apker and Kim Ritter Marty Moseley, Dir. of Code Enforcement; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. 1. ZBAA-23-17 Appeal of Donald Moore, owner of 213 King Rd W, LDR, TP 37.-1-6.2, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 C (Yard regulations) which requires a minimum side yard setback of 40’ feet where approximately 18’ 8” is proposed for a single-family dwelling. Mr. Moore gave a lengthy presentation on his proposal using google maps and street view, older zoning ordinances, drawings and renderings of the proposed structure, assessment maps and diagrams and surveys. The material showed the restraints on the property from topography and especially slope; existing smaller side yard setbacks in the area; and mitigating shielding provided by brush and natural vegetation between his property and one of the neighbors. He said the most important factor is that the subdivision of the lots in the area happened decades ago, resulting in then compliant residential districts zone setbacks of 10’ feet for a buildable lot of 80’ feet where the current zoning is low density with 40’ foot setbacks resulting in a 20’ foot buildable area on the lot. He showed that most homes in the area are built within 20’ feet or significantly less of the side property lines and his proposal would be about 125’ feet from one neighbor and about 200’ feet from another neighbor’s houses but not meeting the side yard setbacks. He added that the lot is near a part of Buttermilk State Park that is not likely to be developed and the design he proposes showcases the views of that natural area in the living area. Mr. Moore stated he went through many calculations trying to shift the layout but the net reduction in the variance he was requesting was so small and the impact to his design so big that it made those other placements or orientations not feasible in his opinion. He added that his proposed design also helps with any environmental impact as it allows using the slope and topography and installing a footer drain to help mitigate run off and reduces excavation needs and helps with the placement of the septic area that is available. A lengthy discussion followed regarding shifting the orientation of the proposed home where Mr. Moore reiterated his calculations and scenarios and the very small decrease in the requested variance that would result compared to the aesthetic and livability of his proposed orientation. ZBA 2023-09-18 (Filed 9/26) Pg. 2 Public Hearing – Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Mrs. Hicks, a neighbor to the west spoke, saying that they would be the ones having the biggest impact and she made a diagram to be able to shift and move the proposed house and she thought it could be shifted to minimize the impact on her house. She showed members her diagram working template but was not able to share it or submit it in a way that it could be saved for the file. Mr. Hicks asked if a further addition would require another variance and Ms. Brock told him it would. Mr. Vrabel spoke saying two of the lots have been combined, the adjacent lots, because he wanted to put up a barn, so he had to combine 209 and 211 into one lot. There was no one else wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. SEQR – Type 2 and not necessary for an area variance for a single-family home. Discussion Gary Bush, licensed engineer spoke, saying that because this is not a true triangle, the benefit to shifting the footprint is negligible and is an optical illusion on 2-dimensional paper. Board members were in favor of granting the appeal, feeling that the lot presented unique hardships and challenges and although he bought the property knowing about the restrictions, it is unique and the proposed home blends into the existing neighborhood and surrounding nature and this is a remarkably narrow lot and the proposal is good and has been moved back to mitigate the impact to the neighbors and this lot was established with 10’ foot setbacks in place. ZBAA-23-17 Area Variance 213 King Rd W, LDR, TP 37.-1-6.2 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Donald Moore, owner of 213 King Rd W, TP 37.- 1-6.2, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-60 C (Yard regulations) which requires a minimum side yard setback of 40’ feet where approximately 18’ 8” is proposed for construction of a single-family dwelling, with the following Conditions 1. That the home be built substantially as presented as to location, with a side yard not less 18’ from the side yard property line, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically ZBA Minutes 2023-09-18 (Filed 9/25) Pg. 3 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the lot was created in 1956 with a legally compliant 100’ feet width which has subsequently changed, and the natural desire to have the living area windows face the natural beauty of the area is understood, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood or to nearby properties as several houses in the area have similarly small setbacks and the proposed home has been designed and placed to minimize any impacts to the neighbors, and 3. That the request is substantial in that 40’ feet is required where 18’ feet is being granted, and 4. That there will not be any adverse environmental effects as no SEQR is required, and 5. That the hardship is self-created in that the applicant was aware of the restrictions on the property prior to purchasing the property. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes – Squires, Jung, Terry, Friedman, and Minnig 2. ZBAA-23-19 Appeal of Ithaca College, TP 41.-1-30.2, MDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-70 (Height limitations) to be permitted to construct an elevator shaft that measuring almost 58’ feet from the lowest interior grade where 38’ feet is permitted. The Applicant was not present, and it was determined that this was a straight-forward request and Mr. Moseley reviewed the necessity and reasoning for the requested height as submitted in the application materials. Public Hearing – Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. The applicant joined via telephone from overseas, apologizing for the miscommunication on the College’s part in having a representative present. He showed pictures of the elevator improvement project. SEQR – None needed – Educational/Institutional routine activities including expansions of less than 10k square feet. Determination ZBAA-23-19 Area Variance Ithaca College, TP 41.-4-30.2 MDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ithaca College, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-70 (Height limitations) to be permitted to construct an elevator shaft that measuring almost 58’ feet from the lowest interior grade where 38’ feet is permitted with the following do t l o o p s i g n a t u r e v e r i f i c a t i o n : dt l p . u s / V z o 2 - O m m n - T H w n ZONING ORDINANCE . TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Effective - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"' 1954 ;~ "' For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, and to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers, to provide adequate light and air, to prevent the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population, to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements, under and pursuant to the Laws of the State of New York, the size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes, are hereby restricted and regulated as hereinafter provided. ARTICLE I SECTION 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance certain words and terms shall have the following meaning unless the context otherwise requires. 1. Words used in the present tense include the future; the singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular; the word "building" includes the word "structure"; and the word "occupied" includes the words "designed or in­ tended to be occupied"; the word "used" includes the words "arranged, designed or intended to be used"; and the word "he" includes "it" and "she". 2.. A "lot" is a parcel of land occupied by one or more principal buildings and the accessory buildings for uses customarily incident to it, including such open spaces as are used in connection with such buildings. . 3. A "lot line" is property boundary line of a lot. 4. The "lot area" shall not include any portion of a public highway right­ of-way that may be included within deed description of the lot. 5. A "family'' is any number of persons of recognized family relationship maintaining a common household, including domestic help. 6. A "dwelling" is a building used for habitation by one or more families. 1. A "rooming house" is a building other than a motel or a hotel where more than two {2.) persons are lodged' for hire or where rooms for more than two (2.) persons are offered for hire. 8. A "tourist house" is the same as a rooming house. 9. A "hospital" is an establishment for temporary occupation by the sick or injured for the purpose of medical treatment, but does not include an establish•; ment for permanent occupation by the poor, infirm, incurable or insane. 10. A "nursing or convalescent home" is a building other than a hospital.: .... where persona, except insane, feeble-minded, drug or liquor patient., are lodged, . furnished with meals and nursing care for hire. . .. , • 11. A "front yard" is the required open apace between the street riaht-~!.~~;, ~ '91ay line and the front line of the principal building (exclusive of overbanalna eave~ I and other permissable projections) extended to the side lines of the lot. 12. A "rear yard" is the required open space bet-Neen the rear lot line and the rear line of the principal building (exclusive of overhanging eaves and other permissable projections) extended to the side lines of the lot. 13. A "side yard" is the required open space between the principal building (exclusive of overhanging eaves and other permissable projections) and a side lot line and extending through from the front yard to the rear yard. 14. An "accessory building" is a building subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal building on the same lot and used for purposes customarily inci­ dental to those of the principal building. 15. A "non-conforming use" is a use of land existing at the time of enact­ ment of this ordinance which does not conform to the zoning regulations of the dis­ trict in which it is situated. 16. A "farm" is a plot of land that exceeds one acre and is used for: a. Tillage of land to produce food to be consumed directly or indirectly by humans or domestic animals or fowl. b. Grazing of land and its crops to feed domestic animals or fowl. c. Rearing of poultry in confinement for meat or eggs. ARTICLE II ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS SECTION 2. Districts. For the purpose of this ordinance the Town of Ithaca is hereby divided into four {4) type.:; of districts as follows: Residence Districts Business Di.: b. icts Industi·i..-.l L'i~tricts Agricult .. u:ll Districts Said district. are set forth on the m~.p accompanying this ordinance, en­ titled Zone Map, dated May 1, 1954, ani s:.ened by the Town Clerk. Said map and all explanatory matter thereon is her..:!by m:::.de a part of this ordinance. SECTION 3. District Boundaries. Where uncertainty exists with respect to the exact boundaries of the various districts as shown on the Zone Map, the following rules shall apply: 1. The district boundaries are lot lines unless otherwise shown, and where the designation on the Zone Map indicates a boundary approximately upon a lot line, such lot line shall be construed to be the boundary. Z. Distances shown on the Zone Map are perpendicular or radial distances from street lines measured back to the zone boundary line, which lines, in all cases where distances are given, are parallel to the street line. l. Where the boundary of a district follows a stream, lake, or other body of water, said boundary line shall be deemed to be at the limit of the jurisdiction of the Town of Ithaca, unless otherwise designated. .. , .. , - 3 - 4. In other cases the boundary line shall be determined by use of the scale on the Zone Map. ARTICLE III RESIDENCE DISTRICTS SECTION 4. Use Regulations. In Residence Districts no building shall be erected or extended and no land or building or part thereof shall be used for other than any of the following purposes: 1. Dwelling 2. Church or other place of worship; convent, parish house, Sunday School building. 3. Public:: library or public:: museum; public:: school, parochial school, nur­ sery school, school operated by a non-stock corporation under the education laws of the State, any institution of higher learning including dormitory accomodations. 4. Publicly owned park or playground including accessory buildings and improvements. 5. Fire station or other public building necessary to the protection of or the servicing of a neighborhood. 6. Golf course, except a driving range or a miniature golf course operated on a commercial basis, provided that no building shall be nearer than one hundred ( 100) feet from any lot line. · 7. Garden, nursery, or farm, except a hog farm where the principal food is garbage. Usual farm buildings are permitted, provided that. a. Any building in which farm animals are kept shall be at least one hundred (100) feet from any lot line. b. No manure shall be stored within one hundred ( 100) feet of any lot line. 8. Any municipal or public utility purpose approved by the Town Board or duly authorized agent thereof. 9. Rooming houses, tourist houses, fraternity or sorority houses. 10. Hospital or sanitarium for the treatment of human beings, other than the insane, feeble-minded, epileptic, drug or liquor patients, provided that no building so used shall be within one hundred (100) feet of any street or within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of the lot line of any adjoining owner. Nursing or con­ valescent homes, but only on special approval of the Board of Appeals. 11. Cemetery and the buildings and structures incident thereto, but only on special approval of the Board of Appeals. 12. A roadside stand for the display and sale of farm products. Any such . stand shall be set back from the highway a sufficient distance to permit off-the­ highway parking and in no case shall be nearer than fifteen (15) feet from the right­ of-way line. -.. 13. Club or lodge operated by membership organizations for the benefit of their members. 14. Not more than t-wo signs in connection with each of the above uses, pro­ vided that such sign shall be on the lot and shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area, and further provided that any illumination thereof be so shielded that it illuminates only said sign. 15. Such accessory uses as are customarily incidental to the above uses, subject to the provisions of Section 5 and 6. SECTION 5. Accessory Uses. Permitted accessory uses in Residence Districts shall include the following: 1. The office of a resident doctor, dentist, musician, engineer, teacher, lawyer, artist, architect or member of other recognized profession, where such office is a part of the residence building. _ Z. Customary home occupation, such as dressmaking, hairdressing, J.aundering, homecooking, or a manual or mechanical trade, all conducted by a l'esident in the building, provided that no goods or products are publicly displayed or offered for sale, and further provided that no offensive noise, odor, or dust are created. 3. Off-street garage or parking space for the occupants, users, and em­ ployees in connection with uses specified under Section 4, but subject to provisions of Section 36. 4. A temporary building for commerce or industry, where such building is necessary or incidental to the development of a residential area. Such building may not be continued for more than one year except upon special approval of the Boar~ of Appeals. 5. Accessory buildings subject to provisions of Section 6. 6. The keeping of domestic animals or fowl in accessory buildings, pro­ vided that no such building .shall be nearer than thirty (30) feet to any lot line of any adjoining owner. SECTION 6. Accessory Buildings. In Residence Districts, accessory buildings other than garages may not occupy any required open space other than a rear yard. Any accessory building may occupy not more than forty (40) per cent of any required rear yard and shall be not less than three (3) feet from any side or rear lot line, except that a private garage may be built across a common lot line •ith a party wall by mutual agreement between adjoining property owners. An ac• cessory building on a corner lot shall not be less than five (5) feet from the rear lot line. Accessory buildings shall in no case exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. Where the natural slope of the ground exceeds eight (8) per cent rise or fall direct­ ly from the street line, a private garage, not over one story in height and housing not in excess of two cars, may be located in the front yard not leas than five (S) feet from said street line. On a corner lot no accessory building may be nearer the side street line than the required front yard depth on the side street. SECTION 7. Yard Regulations. In Residence Districts, yards of at lea•t the following dimensions are required. Front Yard -Not less than the average depth of the front yards of buildings on lots immediately adjacent. - 5 - Normally the front yard depth shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet or need it be greater than fifty (50) feet. Rear Yard -Not less than thirty (30) feet in depth. Side Yards -Each not less than ten ( 10) feet in width, e¥c~pt that in one of the side yards, a one-story garage, either attached to the principal building, or separate therefrom, may be 7 feet from a side line which is not a street line. Special yard requirements for specific uses as established by Section 4 are required. SECTION 8. Building Coverage. No building or buildings on a lot, in­ cluding accessory buildings, shall be erected, altered, or extended to cover more than 25~ of the lot area. Projections described in Section 33 are not to be included in computing the percentage. SECTION 9. Size of Lot. The average width of a lot in Residence Districts shall be not less than the following schedule: 100 feet where no public sewer and water mains are available. 80 feet where a public water main, but no sewer, is available. 60 feet where both public water main and sewer are available. The minimum depth of lot shall be 150 feet. SECTION 10. Special Properties. In the case of publicly owned properties, properties of Universities, Colleges, cemeteries, or other private institutions, located in Residence Districts, and each such property comprising at least a nor­ mal size city block in area and being traversed by interior roads or driveways, the front and side yard requirements of Section 7 shall apply only along the exterior public street frontages and there shall be no rear yard requirement. ARTICLE IV BUSINESS DISTRICTS SECTION 11. Use Regulations. In Business Districts no building shall be erected or extended and no land, or building or part thereof shall be used for other than one or more of the following uses: · · l. Any use permitted by Section 4. 2. Retail store. 3. Auto sales agency. 4. Business or professional office. DEPARTMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1783 codes@townithacany.gov Re: Code Dpt. Review of DEV-24-10 Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey development TP# 62.-2-5 From: Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department Dear Planning Department, Please see the below comments and questions pertaining to application DEV-24-10: 1. According to the stream setback map of the Town of Ithaca, this parcel appears to be impacted by a 100’ stream setback that needs to be identified on the plans submitted. The “bank full run” need to be established and then the stream setback needs to be delineated to determine what impact this project will have on the stream setback. 2. Ther is an existing barn that is on site that needs to be identified with the size, in addition to the phase 1 and phase 2 buildings. 3. Sheet G1-00 seems to indicate that the setback from game farm road is 50’. The front yard setback does not appear to be measured from the highway right- of -way. Please provide documentation to identify the setback distance from the road right- of -way. 4. Sheet C104 appears to have a hydrant shown next to the fire apparatus access road and the hydrant appears to be withing 400’ of all areas of the buildings being proposed, please confirm that this statement is correct. a. Please provide the measurements for all portions of the building to be within 150’ of the fire apparatus access road, per section 503.1.1 of the NYS Fire Code (2020). b. Please show the existing fire hydrants that serve the soccer facility building. c. Due to the hydrant being next to the fire apparatus access road, physical protection needs to be provided for the hydrant in accordance with section 507.5.6 of the NYS Fire Code (2020). d. The sidewalk does not seem to integrate mountable curbs for the fire apparatus access road to be drivable or accessible for emergency vehicles, please indicate where the mountable curbing will be located and identify the profile of the mountable curb. 5. The handicap accessible route seems to be utilizing the fire apparatus access road, would this be a correct statement? Will the fire apparatus access road, leading to the field, have gates or barricades (if so, please provide information on what is proposed and where it is proposed)? 6. Sheet L1-02 identifies the fire access plans. Please show the radius of the entry roadway connection to Game Farm Road. This will be further reviewed in the near future. 7. Please provide fire flow calculations, with what calculation method has been utilized. 8. Variances that need to be provided, as identified currently, are as follows: a. An area variance for the sign area would be necessary due exceeding the total sign area (270-254E.(6)(a)), as the current total sign area appears to be 469.94’ , where the total (25’x17.25’ score board, team building 3.667’x4.667’ and 3.41’x 1.31’, and Axon team building 3.667’x4.667’) sign area is only allowed to be 32 sq.ft.. If the sign area is not correctly identified above, please submit the calculations for all signs on the property. b. An area variance due to section 270-59 of Town code that requires a structure height not to exceed 30’, where the proposed external light poles are approximately 70’ in height and the proposed camera pole is 35’. c. Sprinkler variance: Sheet A1-20 identifies a floor layout of the press box. Sprinklers do not appear to be proposed as part of the press box. Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca code requires sprinklers to be provided in the occupied areas of the building, including the roof. d. An area variance for the fence height. Per section 270-223, of the Town Code, fencing is allowed to be a maximum height of 6’, where the fence is proposed to be 30’ for the netting located on the north and south sides of the field (pg. 13). e. Exterior lighting variance due to the luminaire not being fully shielded in a accordance with section 173-9 of the Town Code. 9. Pg. 13 of the application report indicates that the lighting for the field will have a “sharp cutoff” and not a “fully shielded” luminaire. A “fully shielded” luminaire is required, per section 173-9 of the Town Code, as defined below a. “FULLY SHIELDED LUMINAIRE: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by it, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, is projected below a horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest light-emitting part.” b. If the sports lighting is not “fully shielded”, then a variance will be required to be obtained in accordance with section 173-18 of Town Code. c. Please identify the angle (in degrees) in which the sports field lighting will be directed towards the playing field. 10. Pg 14 of the application report indicates that the buildings will be in compliance with the Ithaca energy Code. Please submit the checklist 11. The site lighting photometric report, located in the application report, shows the proposed lighting of the parking area, but I not legible. The legible photo metric plan appears to be in the site plans. The site plan for the sports field lighting and the parking lot/pedestrian lighting appears to have some overlap but since the phonotactics are on two separate sheets, the lighting intensity is unclear where there is overlap. 12. The application report indicates that there will be amplified noise, which will require a noise permit waiver to be issued by the Town Board, in accordance with article III of chapter 184 of the Town of Ithaca Code. FEAF 2019 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. 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; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part 1is accurate and complete. A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO:State: Zip Code: Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO:State: Zip Code: Page 1 of 13 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Required Application Date (Actual or projected) a.City Council, Town Board, 9 Yes 9 No or Village Board of Trustees b. City, Town or Village 9 Yes 9 No Planning Board or Commission c.City, Town or 9 Yes 9 No Village Zoning Board of Appeals d. Other local agencies 9 Yes 9 No e. County agencies 9 Yes 9 No f. Regional agencies 9 Yes 9 No g. State agencies 9 Yes 9 No h. Federal agencies 9 Yes 9 No i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?9 Yes 9 No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program?9 Yes 9 No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?9 Yes 9 No C.Planning and Zoning C.1. Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the 9 Yes 9 No only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? •If Yes, complete sections C, F and G. •If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site 9 Yes 9 No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action 9 Yes 9 No would be located? b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway;9 Yes 9 No Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes, identify the plan(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, 9 Yes 9 No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes, identify the plan(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 13 (Future Land Use designation is "campus") C.3. Zoning a.Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance.9 Yes 9 No If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?9 Yes 9 No c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________ C.4. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________ b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ d.What parks serve the project site? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D.Project Details D.1. Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all components)? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b.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 c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?9 Yes 9 No i.If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units, square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________ d.Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?9 Yes 9 No iii.Number of lots proposed? ________ iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________ e.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?9 Yes 9 No i.If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months ii.If Yes: •Total number of phases anticipated _____ •Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year •Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year •Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 13 f. Does the project include new residential uses?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more) Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ At completion of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i. Total number of structures ___________ ii.Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length iii.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any 9 Yes 9 No liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i.Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________ ii.If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: 9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D.2. Project Operations a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? 9 Yes 9 No (Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________ ii.How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site? •Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________ •Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________ iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet viii.Will the excavation require blasting?9 Yes 9 No ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 9 Yes 9 No into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 13 ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes 9 No If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________ •expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________ •purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________ •if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________ v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c.Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________ •Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?9 Yes 9 No •Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No •Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No •Do existing lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________ iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No If, Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________ •Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________ •Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________ v.If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.If water supply will be from wells (public or private), what is the maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute. d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________ •Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________ •Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No •Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No •Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No Page 5 of 13 •Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No •Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________ •Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________ •What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________ v.If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 9 Yes 9 No sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction? If Yes: i.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? _____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface) _____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size) ii.Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties, groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ •If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?9 Yes 9 No iv.Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? 9 Yes 9 No f.Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel 9 Yes 9 No combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations? If Yes, identify: i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit,9 Yes 9 No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet 9 Yes 9 No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate: •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants,9 Yes 9 No landfills, composting facilities)? If Yes: i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________ ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as 9 Yes 9 No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial 9 Yes 9 No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): † Morning † Evening †Weekend † Randomly between hours of __________ to ________. ii.For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): _____________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Parking spaces: Existing ___________________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________________ iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?Yes No v.If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site?9 Yes 9 No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric 9 Yes 9 No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing 9 Yes 9 No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand 9 Yes 9 No for energy? If Yes: i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or other): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade, to an existing substation?9 Yes 9 No l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i.During Construction:ii.During Operations: •Monday - Friday: _________________________•Monday - Friday: ____________________________ •Saturday: ________________________________•Saturday: ___________________________________ •Sunday: _________________________________•Sunday: ____________________________________ •Holidays: ________________________________•Holidays: ___________________________________ Page 7 of 13 N/A m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,9 Yes 9 No operation, or both? If yes: i.Provide details including sources, time of day and duration: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?9 Yes 9 No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n.Will the proposed action have outd oor lighting?9 Yes 9 No If yes: i.Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? 9 Yes 9 No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)9 Yes 9 No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i.Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year) iii.Generally, describe the proposed storage facilities:________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides,9 Yes 9 No insecticides) during construction or operation? If Yes: i.Describe proposed treatment(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?9 Yes 9 No r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal 9 Yes 9 No of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i.Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: •Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) •Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: •Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: •Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 13 N/A s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: •________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or •________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment iii.If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 9 Yes 9 No waste? If Yes: i.Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site a. Existing land uses. i.Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site. 9 Urban 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Rural (non-farm) 9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): ____________________________________ ii.If mix of uses, generally describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Covertype Current Acreage Acreage After Project Completion Change (Acres +/-) •Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious surfaces •Forested •Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non- agricultural, including abandoned agricultural) •Agricultural (includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.) •Surface water features (lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.) •Wetlands (freshwater or tidal) •Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill) •Other Describe: _______________________________ ________________________________________ Page 9 of 13 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? 9 Yes 9 No i. If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________ d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed 9 Yes 9 No day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: • Dam height: _________________________________ feet • Dam length: _________________________________ feet • Surface area: _________________________________ acres • Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet ii. Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________ iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, 9 Yes 9 No or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i. Has the facility been formally closed? 9 Yes 9 No • If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________ ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin 9 Yes 9 No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any 9 Yes 9 No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site 9 Yes 9 No Remediation database? Check all that apply: 9 Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________ iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? 9 Yes 9 No • If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________ • Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________ • Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________ • Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________ • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? 9 Yes 9 No • Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________% c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________% ___________________________ __________% ____________________________ __________% d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Poorly Drained _____% of site f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%: _____% of site 9 10-15%: _____% of site 9 15% or greater: _____% of site g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, 9 Yes 9 No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, 9 Yes 9 No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information: • Streams: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________• Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________• Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________ • Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________ v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 9 Yes 9 No waterbodies? If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? 9 Yes 9 No j. Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No k. Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 13 m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________ iii. Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: ______________________ acres • Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres • Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as 9 Yes 9 No endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i. Species and listing (endangered or threatened):______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of 9 Yes 9 No special concern? If Yes: i. Species and listing:____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to 9 Yes 9 No Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________ b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? 9 Yes 9 No i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________ ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________ c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National 9 Yes 9 No Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: 9 Biological Community 9 Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 13 e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district 9 Yes 9 No which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: 9 Archaeological Site 9 Historic Building or District ii. Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for 9 Yes 9 No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________ ii. Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________ h. Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local 9 Yes 9 No scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i. Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers 9 Yes 9 No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________ ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? 9 Yes 9 No F. Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________ Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________ Page 13 of 13 Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Zoning Variance Application Materials Cornell University Ithaca, NY March 10, 2025 This page intentionally left blank. March 10, 2025 Zoning Board Members, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Variances for the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Dear Town of Ithaca Zoning Board Members: Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics. Construction of the project is proposed in two phases. Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes with a much-needed, NCAA compliant synthetic turf field. The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields. Phase one will include a field hockey pitch, a new driveway, formalized parking, pedestrian amenities, and small support facilities. The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. This project requires area variances for a scoreboard and other site signage, height variances for the athletic fence netting and field lighting, and a sprinkler variance for the press box roof. We ask for consideration of the zoning variances described herein at your April 22, 2025 meeting. Enclosed please find project narrative, zoning board of appeals applications, and graphics for the project. The application fee will be provided separately. Sincerely, Kimberly Van Leeuwen Director of Landscape Architecture 1001 W Seneca Street Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 • 607.277.1400 • fisherassoc.com Cultivating our gifts to create a legacy of infrastructure that improves quality of life. add KVL signature This page intentionally left blank. PROJECT CONSULTANTS Project Architect and Landscape Architect Project Municipal Approvals Project Civil Engineer Project Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Engineers This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Overview Zoning Variances Criteria Zoning Variance Graphics Project Renderings Town Code Department Review Letter This page intentionally left blank. PROJECT OVERVIEW Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics. Construction of the project is proposed in two phases. Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed, NCAA-required synthetic turf field. The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields. Phase one will include a field hockey pitch, a new driveway, formalized parking, pedestrian amenities, and small support facilities. The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. An additional building (phase two) for field hockey is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation. The building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team. The clubhouse will include team locker rooms, offices, meeting rooms, a physical therapy/training room, a lounge, toilets, showers, and an indoor training space. The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The full buildout with Phase II building is visible on the title page. The proposed septic system, stormwater management system, and electrical transformer included in the phase one construction will be sized to accommodate both phase one and phase two development. Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit The proposed facilities will provide a new home for Cornell field hockey, primarily varsity athletes, while also serving club and camp needs. Location The project site totals approximately 15.65 acres and is within three tax parcels in the Town of Ithaca (numbers 62.-2-6, 62.-2-5, and 62.-2-4). The limit of disturbance within the site is approximately 12.22 acres. The total acreage of the three parcels in which the project site sits is approximately 123 acres. These parcels are adjacent additional Game Farm Road and East Hill Plaza Cornell lands that comprise approximately 506 acres, per the County Assessment tax mapping. Figure: Project Location ZONING VARIANCES CRITERIA Low Density Residential (LDR) The proposed field will be located within the Town of Ithaca Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District, primarily on parcel 62.-2-6 with some additional work in parcels 62.-2-5 and 62.-2-4. The project is an allowed use with a special use permit in the LDR zone as part of an institution of higher learning. Both the phase one and phase two buildings will meet building height, yard setback, and lot coverage requirements. At the end of this package, graphics of each element listed below are provided, along with a site plan showing the locations of each element. In Residential and Conservation Zones, Town code dictates that: •Signs may not be internally illuminated. In other Zones, Town code dictates that internally illuminated signs shall be turned off between the hours of 9:00pm and 5:00am. •Freestanding signs shall not exceed six feet in height, and no one sign should be larger than six square feet in area. •Signs up to 16 square feet in area in the aggregate on any one parcel are permitted. •Flags should not exceed 40 square feet in area. Team Building A red aluminum sign in the shape of the letter “C” for the team building is proposed to be approximately 4.75 feet tall and 3.75 feet wide, totaling around 17.5 square feet. This sign requires a variance for exceeding six square feet in area. Press Box Two types of signs are proposed for the press box. One is an aluminum panel sign painted red with raised white lettering and is proposed to be 18 inches tall and ten feet wide, totaling 15 square feet in area. The other sign is comprised of metal letters that are one foot high and will span approximately 13.75 feet. These signs require variances for being larger than six square feet in area. Scoreboard The project includes a scoreboard with internally illuminated digits. The scoreboard will be turned off between the hours of 9:00pm and 5:00am. The freestanding scoreboard will be 11.5 feet tall and 20 feet wide, totaling 230 square feet in area. The bottom of the scoreboard panel will be ten feet off the ground. For these reasons, the scoreboard requires an area variance. Field Timers The project also includes two field timers that are internally illuminated. The timers will be turned off between the hours of 9:00pm and 5:00am. Each field timer is 3.75 feet tall and 3.5 feet wide, totaling just over 13 square feet in area. The bottom of the field timer panels will be ten feet off the ground. For these reasons, the field timers require an area variance. Windscreens Two windscreens are proposed for wrapping the chain link fence on the north and south sides of the field, with four-foot red lettering facing into the field. The backs of the windscreen will be black. Each windscreen will be 100 feet long and six feet high, totaling 600 square feet in area. Due to their total area, the windscreens require an area variance. Team Dugouts Each team dugout is proposed to have a red aluminum panel sign with raised white lettering that will be six inches tall and just over 10.5 feet wide, totaling just over five feet in area. On their own, these signs do not require variances, but they contribute to the total sign area. Flag One eight feet by 12 feet flag is proposed next to the scoreboard, totaling 96 square feet, therefore requiring a variance. Aggregate Area The aggregate area of signs is 1,608.25 square feet, exceeding 16 square feet and therefore requiring a variance. Area Variance – Fence/Netting Height In Residential and Conservation Zones, Town code dictates that fencing should generally not exceed six feet in height. The project includes 24-foot-high field netting located at the north and south ends of the proposed field hockey field, behind the goals (approximately 64 feet in length, total). This netting is necessary for safety reasons. The netting requires a variance for exceeding six feet in height. Area Variance – Flag Pole and Light Poles Section 270-59 of Town code requires that a structure height should not exceed 30 feet. A freestanding 40-feet-tall flagpole is proposed and will require a variance. There are four sports light poles that are 70 feet in height, thus requiring a variance. The site light poles are under 30 feet and do not require a variance. Area Variance Criteria Form 1.Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties? No. The proposed field hockey field is surrounded by Cornell land and other athletic facilities. The signs, netting, and lighting are similar in size, height, and materiality to others in the vicinity. 2.Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance? No. The scoreboard and field timer must be internally lit and are sized to be visible to players and spectators. All signs are sized appropriately to their respective locations and purposes. The 24-foot-high netting is required for safety reasons. The height of the lighting poles is necessary for proper illumination of the field and site. The height of the flag pole is necessary for the flag to fly above the scoreboard unobstructed. 3.Is the requested variance substantial? No. The signs, netting, and poles are typical in size and height for athletic facilities. 4.Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No. The project is located among other athletic facilities and surrounded on three sides by other campus lands. The proposed physical and environmental conditions (athletic field and small buildings) are similar to the existing conditions and should not have a dramatic impact on the neighborhood. 5.Is the alleged difficulty self-created? No. As previously recognized by the Town, regarding other projects, the Low-Density Residential zoning does not align with university land use. The town’s zoning code does not include an institutional or university zone. Sprinkler Variance – Press Box The proposed project includes a press box building. NYS Building Code does not require a sprinkler system to be installed in the proposed press box building. The Town of Ithaca has more restrictive sprinkler system requirements and requires that the press box building be provided with a sprinkler system in compliance with NFPA standards. NFPA 13 is the standard that regulates sprinkler systems in nonresidential buildings. A press box building is classified as an office building and, therefore, requires a sprinkler system per Town of Ithaca Code § 225-3. The proposed press box is a small two-story building with a flat roof. The occupied area of the first floor is 190 square feet, second floor is 190 square feet, and the roof area is 240 square feet. The first and second floors are enclosed with windows facing the field that will be used for press. The first and second floors will be sprinklered. The roof is open to the sky and will be occasionally used as a camera platform. The roof will be used only as a camera platform, there will be no other use of the roof. Cameras will only be on the roof when they are being used- neither the cameras, nor anything else, will be stored on the roof. The Town’s Code Enforcement official interprets the code to require sprinklers on all floors, including the open-air roof. We ask for a variance to not include sprinklers on the open-air roof. 1.Will the strict application of the Sprinkler Chapter of the Town Code create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship? Yes. Cornell University will provide sprinkler coverage in the enclosed first floor and second floor of the press box building and a fire extinguisher for the roof; however, providing sprinkler coverage for the roof presents a problem. No manufacturer lists a sprinkler head for use on an open roof. There are no sprinkler heads listed by a required testing agency for use on a level that is open to the sky. All sprinkler heads are listed for installation at a specific distance below a ceiling. NFPA 13 also has requirements for sprinkler head installation at a specific distance below a ceiling. Unless Cornell builds a roof over the roof, there is no code compliant way to sprinkler the open roof area. Furthermore, NFPA 13 does not require open roof areas to be provided with sprinkler coverage. The NYS Code does not require office buildings to be provided with a sprinkler system. NYS Code does require certain Group A – Assembly occupancies to be provided with sprinkler coverage. Even if a Group A – Assembly occupancy that requires sprinkler coverage is located on a roof, NYS Code does not require that roof be provided with sprinkler coverage. In those cases, NYS Code requires all floors below the roof to be provided with sprinkler coverage. All floors below the roof of the press box will be provided with sprinkler coverage. 2.Will the omission of an approved sprinkler system from all or part of the building significantly jeopardize human life? No. The roof will be used only as a camera platform. The cameras will only be on the roof when they are being used, the cameras will not be stored on the roof. The cameras will be used approximately 15 times per year and the roof will be occupied by a maximum number of two people who are camera operators. In addition, a fire extinguisher will be provided and there is an exterior staircases for people to get off the roof quickly in case of an emergency. The furthest point on the roof from the exterior staircase is 21 feet. It will take fewer than 10 seconds to evacuate the roof from the furthest point. Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Zoning Variance Graphics Team Building - East Elevation Scale: Not To Scale Press Box - East Elevation Scale: Not To Scale 4' - 9 " 3' - 0 " 3'-8" 1' - 0 " 2'-4" 13 ' - 8 " 3' - 6 " 10 ' 1' 19 ' 18 " 8' Red Aluminum Panel with Raised White Lettering Red Aluminum Sign Building Alternate 10' 13'-7" CORNELL FIELD HOCKEY [NAME/FAMILY] PRESS BOX Building Alternate 4' - 9 " 3' - 0 " 3'-8" 1' - 0 " 2'-4" 13 ' - 8 " 11 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 20'-0" 7' - 6 " Scoreboard Field Timer (2 Locations) 10 ' - 0 " 3' - 9 " 3'-6" Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 18 " 18 " Internally Illuminated LED Digits Internally Illuminated LED Digits 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 0 " 1'-0" 1'-3" CORNELL FIELD HOCKEY DONOR NAME HERE Windscreen (2 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale Printed Heavy Duty Vinyl Team Dugout (2 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale 8' - 9 " 8' - 2 " Red Aluminum Panel with Raised White Lettering 6" 10'-7 1/2" 6'4' 100' [NAME/FAMILY] DUGOUT CORNELL FIELD HOCKEY GO BIG RED - East Elevation Field Netting (2 Locations) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 24 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 13 ' - 9 " 24'-0" Field Timer Behind Netting Net Post Chain Link Fence 6" Field Netting Windscreen Flag Pole 6' - 0 " 40 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 1 / 4 " Chain Link Fence Flag Pole Scoreboard Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Windscreen Sports Lights (4 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale 70 ' 70 ' 70 ' Sports Lights F1, F2 Sports Light F3 Sports Light F4 Site Lights (18 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale Site Light Single Head Site Light Double Head 20 ' 20 ' Press Box - Sprinkler Variance Scale: Not To Scale West Elevation Roof Plan 19 ' 9' - 8 " 24'-8" 7' - 6 " Path of Egress Path of Egress Guardrail 3' - 6 " Roof Entrance (Gate) Roof Entrance (Gate)Press Box Roof This page intentionally left blank. This page intentionally left blank. -: : .- . - :• . -. ; ‘ c: j . . i - J I. . =- .: Q . : E: : 2a : •E=C ’ ) L LL J 3 I = C/ ) =‘ ) S — Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 -Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor.Responses become part ofthe 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;indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A &B.In Sections C,D &E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes”or “No”.If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”,complete the sub-questions that follow.If the answer to the initial question is “No”,proceed to the next question.Section F allows the project sponsor to identif,’and attach any additional information.Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part us accurate and complete. A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name ofAction or Project: Cornell Field Hockey field Project Location (describe,and attach a general location map): On the west side of Game Farm Road,between the road and McGovern Fields;Town Parcel #62-2-6 and #62-2-5 ,and #62-2-4 Brief Description ofProposed Action (include purpose or need): Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics.Construction of the project is proposed in two phases.Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes with a NCAA-compliant synthetic turf field.The field is proposed on the site of an existing grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields.Phase one will include a field hockey pitch,a new driveway,formalized parking,pedestrian amenities,and small support facilities.The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. Phase two,which involves an additional building,is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation.The proposed building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team.The clubhouse will include team locker rooms,offices,meeting rooms,a physical therapy/training room,a lounge,toilets, showers,and an indoor training space.The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The proposed septic system,storm water management system,and electrical transformer included in the Phase one construction will be sized to accommodate the needs of the future clubhouse.The enclosed documents and FEAF address the full project buildout (Phases one and two). Name of Applicant/Sponsor:Telephone:607.227.1400 Kimberly Van Leeuwen E-Mail:kmichaels@fisherassoc.com Address:Seneca Street,Suite 201 City/PO:Ithaca State:NY Zip Code:14850 Project Contact (ifnot same as sponsor;give name and title/role):Telephone:607.255.2478 Elisabete Godden,Project Manager E-Mail:egoddencornell.edu Address: 102 Humphries Service Building City/PO:State:Zip Code: Ithaca NY 14853 Property Owner (if not same as sponsor):Telephone: Cornell University E-Mail: Address: City/PO:Ithaca State:Zip Code:14850 NY Page 1 of 13 FEAF 2019 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship.(“Funding”includes grants,loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity IfYes:Identify Agency and Approval(s)Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a.City Council,Town Board,IYesDNo Town Board:Sewer Exemption or_Village_Board_of Trustees b.City,Town or Village IYesNo Town Planning Board:SEQR,Site Plan Approval,1013/2024PlanningBoardorCommissionSpecialUsePermit c.City,Town or IYesNo ZBA:Variance(s)3/10/2025VillageZoningBoardofAppeals — d.Other local agencies DYes No e.County agencies YesDNo CHD Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWT )TC OWTS Permit TBDConstructionPermit;TC GML 239 Review/Referral TC-gMCIetter received 11126/2024 f.Regional agencies QYesNo g.State agencies IYesDNo NYSDEC:Stormwater Permit;SPDES Permit TBD h.Federal agencies IEIYesNo i.Coastal Resources. I.Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?DYes INo ii.Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? iii.Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?D YesNo C.Planning and Zoning c.1.Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment ofa plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the DYesNo only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? .IfYes,complete sections C,F and G. .If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site YesDNo where the proposed action would be located? IfYes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action YesDNo would be located?(Future Land Use designation is “campus”) b.Is the site ofthe proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example:Greenway;DYesNo Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?). If Yes,identify the plan(s): c.Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan,DYes No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes,identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 C.3.Zoning a.Is the site ofthe proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance.YesNo IfYes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? LDR -Low Density Residential b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?YesNo c.Is a zoning change requested as part ofthe proposed action?DYesNo If Yes, I.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? C.4.Existing community services. a.In what school district is the project site located?Ithaca City School District b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Cornell Campus Police.Tompkins County Sheriff c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Ithaca Fire Department,Bangs Ambulance d.What parks serve the project site? East Hill Recreation Way D.Project Details D.1.Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed,include all components)?Recreational -Field Hockey Field b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?1>(5 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed?12.22 acres c.Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?506 acres c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?Yes No i.IfYes,what is the approximate percentage ofthe proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)?% ______________________ Units: ______________________ d.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision?DYes INo If Yes, i.Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) ii.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?DYes INo iii.Number of lots proposed? ________ iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes?Minimum .Maximum __________ e.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?YesCNo i.IfNo,anticipated period ofconstruction: _____ months ii.If Yes: .Total number ofphases anticipated 2 .Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition)3 month 2025 year .Anticipated completion date of final phase tbd month tbd year •Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases:It is anticipated that within five years,the phase two building could move forward. If so,it would likely take 12-18 months to complete.The infrastructure proposed for phase I is sized to accommodate phase II. Page 3 of 13 f.Does the project include new residential uses?QYesNo IfYes,show numbers ofunits proposed. Qll Family IQ Family Iç Family Multiple Family or Initial Phase ________________________________________________________________ At completion of all phases ______________________________________________________________ g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?YesQNo If Yes, i.Total number of structures 3 ii.Dimensions (in feet)oflargest proposed structure:20-0”height;97-0’width;and 165-0’length iii.Approximate extent ofbuilding space to be heated or cooled:14,400 square feet h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any Yes No liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond,lake,waste lagoon or other storage? IfYes,Project does NOT include an “impoundment”per NYS DEC definition,just standard stormwater managem cilities i.Purpose of the impoundment:Stormwater detention and treatment ii.If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water:Q Ground water Surface water streams flOther specify: N/A iii.If other than water,identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. N/A iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment.Volume:I .0 million gallons;surface area:0.72 acres V.Dimensions ofthe proposed dam or impounding structure:514 height;375’length vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): Traditional construction techniques associated with the installation of a compacted earth fill embankment for stormwater mitigation D.2.Project Operations a.Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both?OYesNo (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation ofutilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? ________________________________________________________________ ii.How much material (including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site? .Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ________________________________________________ .Over what duration of time? ________________________________________________________ iii.Describe nature and characteristics ofmaterials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials?OYesüNo Ifyes,describe. _________________________________________________ V.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _________________________________________acres vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? __________________________________ acres vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet viii.Will the excavation require blasting?YesONo ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan:. b.Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment YesNo into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): Page 4 of 13 ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines.Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres: iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments?EYes QNo IfYes,describe: iv.Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation?L1 YesCNo If Yes: .acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ______________________________________________________________ .expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:____________________________________________ .purpose ofproposed removal (e.g.beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access): ______________________________ .proposed method ofplant removal: _________________________________________________________________________ .if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): _______________________________________________________ V.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: ____________________________________________________ c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water?Yes JNo If Yes: I.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day:950 Domestic consumption only)gallons/day ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?Yes LJNo If Yes: •Name of district or service area:Cornell University Water System (NYSDEC Permit #:7-5030-00008/00007) •Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?I Yes No •Is the project site in the existing district?I YesD No •Is expansion of the district needed?L1 Yes No •Do existing lines serve the project site?I YesC No iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?Yes IJNo If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: _____________________________________________ A new 8”HDPE water main will be connected to the existing system located atthe McGovern Soccer Building and extended to the project. •Source(s)of supply for the district:Fall Creek via the Cornell University Water Filtration Plant iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?Q YesNo If,Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district:N/A •Date application submitted or anticipated:N/A •Proposed source(s)of supply for new district:N/A V.If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: _____________________________ A public water supply will be used for the proposed project. vi.Ifwater supply will be from wells (public or private),what is the maximum pumping capacity:N/A gallons/minute. d.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?IZI Yes DNo If Yes: 1.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day:950 gallons/day ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial;if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): ______________________________________________________________________ Sanitary wastewater iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities?EYes INo If Yes: •Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used:N/A •Name of district:N/A •Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?DYes QNo •Is the project site in the existing district?QYes EJNo •Is expansion of the district needed?DYes DNo Page 5 ofl3 .Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?QYes QNo .Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?QYes QNo If Yes: .Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: _________________________________________ N/A iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site?DYes No If Yes: .Applicant/sponsor for new district: _________________________________________________________________________ .Date application submitted or anticipated: ____________________________________________________________________ .What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? _________________________________________________________ V.Ifpublic facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): A septic system that includes a subsurface mound absorption bed,septic tank,and pump station will be installed to provide wastewater treatment for the project. The required onsite wastewater treatment system construction permit will be applied for and obtained from the Tompkins County Health Department. vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: ______________________________________________________ N/A e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point IYes QNo sources (i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source (i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: I.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size ofproject parcel? ______ Square feet or 3.47 acres (add’l impervious surface) ______ Square feet or 123 acres (parcel size) ii.Describe types ofnew point sources.Driveway/parking drainage system,swales,athletic field underdrains iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? Runoffwill be collected via a system ofdrainage inlets,swales,and underdrains;then directed to two bioretention filters and an extended detention shallow wetland before being released to Cascadilla Creek.Existing drainage patterns and rates will be maintained. .If to surface waters,identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: _______________________________________________________ Cascadilla Creek .Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?DYesI No iv.Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater?DYesNo f.Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel DYes No combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? IfYes,identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations (e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g.,process emissions,large boilers,electric generation) g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit,QYes WINo or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area?(Area routinely or periodically fails to meet DYes DNo ambient air quality standards for all or some parts ofthe year) ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: . ___________Tons/year (short tons)ofCarbon Dioxide (C02) . ___________Tons/year (short tons)ofNitrous Oxide (N20) • ____________Tons/year (short tons)of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) • ___________Tons/year (short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) • ___________Tons/year (short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) • ___________Tons/year (short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants,LJYesINq landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: I.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): _________________________________________________________________________ ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): i.Will the proposed action result in the release ofair pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as UYesNo quarry or landfill operations? IfYes:Describe operations and nature ofemissions (e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial QYesNo new demand for transportation facilities or services?,,Although checked no,please see parts 2 &3 If Yes: i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply):Q Morning Q Evening QWeekend D Randomly between hours of__________to ________ ii.For commercial activities only,projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g.,semi trailers and dump trucks): ______________ iii.Parking spaces:Existing Proposed _____________ Net increase/decrease ________________________ iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?OYes No V.Ifthe proposed action includes any modification ofexisting roads,creation ofnew roads or change in existing access,describe: vi.Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within ‘/2 mile ofthe proposed site?YesDNo vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric Yes No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing UYesflNo pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand QYesNo N/A for energy?Project is not a commercial or industrial project If Yes: I.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or other): iii.Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade,to an existing substation?DYesUNo 1.Hours of operation.Answer all items which apply. I.During Construction:ii.During Operations: •Monday -Friday:7AM -3PM •Monday -Friday:6AM -9PM •Saturday:7AM -3PM •Saturday:9AM -9PM •Sunday:.7AM-3PM •Sunday:.9AM-9PM •Holidays:7AM -3PM •Holidays:n/a Page 7 of 13 m.Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,I Yes DNo operation,or both? If yes: i.Provide details including sources,time ofday and duration: Construction:Typical construction and jobsite activity noise:Diesel engines,dump trucks,excavators,etc. Operations:PA system,spectators,field hockey activity during practices and games ii.Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?D Yes WINo Describe: n.Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting?I Yes QNo If yes: i.Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: Twenty-two 20’pedestrian lights will be installed in the proposed parking lot and along the sidewalk/path circulation areas between parking,field hockey field,and support facility locations.Four 70’tall standard athletic lighting poles will be sited atthe corners ofthe field hockey field. ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen?D Yes WINo Describe: 0.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day?Q Yes WINo IfYes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration ofodor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p.Will the proposed action include any bulk storage ofpetroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)Q Yes INo or chemical products 1 85 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i.Product(s)to be stored ii.Volume(s) _______ per unit time ____________ (e.g.,month,year) iii.Generally,describe the proposed storage facilities:_________________________________________________________________________ q.Will the proposed action (commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides (i.e.,herbicides,I Yes QNo insecticides)during construction or operation? If Yes: i.Describe proposed treatment(s): If necessary,a professional will apply pesticides or herbicides to control unwanted vegetation and pests.Cornell utilizes an Integrated Pest Management approach to grounds management on campus that will be used at this site as well. ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?I Yes QNo r.Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal D Yes DNo N/A of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?Project is not a commercial or industrial pjçjçcIfYes: i.Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation ofthe facility: •Construction: _____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) •Operation: _____________________ tons per _________________ (unit of time) ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: •Construction: ___________________________________________ •Operation: _______________________________________________ iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: •Construction: ___________________________________________ •Operation: _________________________________________________ Page 8 of 13 S.Does the proposed action include construction or modification ofa solid waste management facility?U Yes No If Yes: i.Type ofmanagement or handling ofwaste proposed for the site (e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: . _________ Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or . _________ Tons/hour,if combustion or thermal treatment iii.If landfill,anticipated site life: _____________________________________ years t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous QYes WINo waste? If Yes: i.Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility: ______________________________ ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ________________________________________ iii.Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse ofhazardous constituents: _____________________________ V.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility?UYesONo IfYes:provide name and location of facility: _________________________________________________________________________ IfNo:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a.Existing land uses. i.Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. U Urban Industrial I Commercial I Residential (suburban)l Rural (non-farm) Forest LI Agriculture I Aquatic I Other (specify):soccer fields and baseball diamond ii.If mix of uses,generally describe:(Cascadilla Creek is located approx.575+!-ft north of project)ç b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres +/-) .Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces 1.55 5.02 +3.47 .Forested .Meadows grasslands or brushlands (non- ....4.70 2.53 -2.17agricultural,_including_abandoned_agricultural) .Agricultural (includes_active_orchards,_field,_greenhouse_etc.) •Surface water features .0.10 0.33 +0.23 (lakes,_ponds,_streams,_rivers,_etc.) .Wetlands_(freshwater_or_tidal) •Non-vegetated (bare rock,earth or fill) •Other Describe:Lawn 9.30 777 -1.53 Page 9 of 13 C.Is the project site presently used by members ofthe community for public recreation?YesNo i.IfYes:explain: d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities (e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed QYesNo day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet ofthe project site? If Yes, i.Identify Facilities: e.Does the project site contain an existing dam?YesNo If Yes: 1.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: .Dam height: _________________________________ feet .Dam length: _________________________________ feet .Surface area: ______________________________________ acres .Volume impounded: ________________________________ gallons OR acre-feet ii.Dam’s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: f.Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility,QYesNo or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: I.Has the facility been formally closed?.QYesD No .If yes,cite sources/documentation: _________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Describe the location ofthe project site relative to the boundaries ofthe solid waste management facility: iii.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: ________________________________________________ g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed ofat the site,or does the project site adjoin YesNo property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: I.Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred: h.Potential contamination history.Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any DYes No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i.Is any portion ofthe site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site DYesDNo Remediation database?Check all that apply: D Yes —Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): _________________________________ 0 Yes —Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): _________________________________ O Neither database ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures:___________________________________________ iii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database?OYesNo If yes,provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________________________________________________________ iv.If yes to (i),(ii)or (iii)above,describe current status of site(s): Page 10 of 13 V.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses?flYesINq .Ifyes,DEC site ID number: ______________________________________________________________________________ .Describe the type ofinstitutional control (e.g.,deed restriction or easement): _______________________________________ .Describe any use limitations: _______________________________________________________________________________________ .Describe any engineering controls: _________________________________________________________________________ .Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place?QYesNo .Explain: E.2.Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site?>io feet b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site?DYes No IfYes,what proportion ofthe site is comprised ofbedrock outcroppings?N/A % c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site:Silt mixed with clay and trace sand.100 % Glacial Till (>13 ft depth) ___________%________________________% d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site?Average:>10 feet e.Drainage status ofproject site soils:Well Drained:100 %of site D Moderately Well Drained: ______% of site D Poorly Drained _____% of site f.Approximate proportion ofproposed action site with slopes:I 0-10%:100 %of site LI 10-15%: _____% of site 0 15%or greater: ______% of site g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site?DYesNo IfYes,describe: h.Surface water features. i.Does any portion ofthe project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams,rivers,UYesNo ponds or lakes)? ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site?YesDNo IfYes to either i or ii,continue.IfNo,skip to E.2.i. iii.Are any ofthe wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal,Yes DNo state or local agency? iv.For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information: .Streams:Name Cascadilla Creek Classification Riverine .Lakes or Ponds:Name _____________________________________________ Classification ________________________ .Wetlands:Name ______________________________________________ Approximate Size ____________________ .Wetland No.(ifregulated by DEC) _____________________________ V.Are any ofthe above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation ofNYS water quality-impaired DYes INo waterbodies?. Ifyes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _______________________________________________ i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway?.DYes JNo j Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain2 QYes INo k.Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain?DYes IZINo 1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer?DYes INo If Yes: i.Name of aquifer: Page 11 of 13 m.Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: _________________________________ Deer Rodents Garter Snakes n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community?DYes jNo If Yes: I.Describe the habitat/community (composition,function,and basis for designation): ________________________________________ ii.Source(s)of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Extent of community/habitat: •Currently: ________________________ acres •Following completion of project as proposed: ______________________ acres •Gain or loss (indicate +or -): _________________________ acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Li YesNo endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i.Species and listing (endangered or threatened):_____________________________________________________________________________________ Three Birds Orchid is identified on the EAF Mapper,but the conditions for this species do not exist on the project site. p.Does the project site contain any species ofplant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of QYesNo special concern? IfYes: i.Species and listing: q.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing?UYesNo If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3.Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to DYes No Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? If Yes,provide county plus district name/number: b.Are agricultural lands consisting ofhighly productive soils present?YesDNo i.If Yes:acreage(s)on project site?Approx.I 6 acres between 3 parcels.located south of the project.See Parts 2 &3 (j’) ii.Source(s)ofsoil rating(s):NRCS Soil Mapping c.Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National DYes WINo Natural Landmark? If Yes: I.Nature ofthe natural landmark:D Biological Community Li Geological Feature ii.Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ____________________ d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area?DYesNo If Yes: I.CEA name: ii.Basis for designation: iii.Designating agency and date: Page 12 of 13 :.,. e.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district I YesQNp which is listed on the National or State Register ofHistoric Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register ofllistoric Places? If Yes: I.Nature ofhistoric/archaeological resource:Archaeological Site Historic Building or District ii.Name:Eligible property:CCC Camp SP-48 (140 Game Farm Road) iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: Former Civilian Conservation Corp building (shed)located on the property f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for Yes QNo archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)archaeological site inventory? g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site?IYes flNo If Yes: I.Describe possible resource(s):Former CCC building (see above),I 9th century farm sites,Native American sites ii.Basis for identification:Multiple archaeology investigations. h.Is the project site within fives miles ofany officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local Yes QNo scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i.Identify resource:Cayuga Lake Byway;Town-Designated View on Pine Tree Road;County-Designated View on Turkey Hill/Dodge Road ii.Nature of,or basis for,designation (e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.):Scenic byway,designated views iii.Distance between project and resource:Byway +/-2.7;Views +/-0.5 miles. i.Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers Q YesNo Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: I.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ___________________________________________________________________ ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666?QYes DNo F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G.Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Kimberly Michaels Date October 1,2024 Signare________________________________________________Title Director of Landscape Architecture PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 No No DI nnçk d am ml avat orm Wnnida R In F oeai irjfl ia am ml evat iirr Enrida I In EAF DiEhJ nmjçiig i am ml aVtIn orse innidda I In EAF DjhI l1I.dd.am ml avtk orw innidda I In EAF No No No -Djjhl iiniciiu irbmwhon on Ioc aid h5lwd bmls aid •Iade b.i lo In i.oonç&h.erb EAF Wothoot No Dihl nawiI.did.am ml avidthIn or v ivn,dda I In EAF DjhI ialcEI.did.am ml .vidthhi or v tanddn..hi EAF i am ml avidthk orsv innldda .hi EAF No No EAF Ibppr &miniy Roit WaIneI.y.Nrh 5.Nfl 244 FN aa:flrEWba nrrà bi h&&A L 3 I ç anfl .LI•iw—k ..,....Lr -.:i ‘.EL i4 :iqt: :t. -I ...a .•th c ..a .L’fr TU•:atZ ea -s-b .Lhfvi ;.. C. ---. A b iS.ai fr .-o a ;:-S :.-t‘r - &x I w Mm.-$‘. Wtd t .-f ..,,1.’ Ithaca i;!r:i Drytlen turtt MeGth:_ :I T [tft Itsnfrn IdW•r - ‘);q !hb2 , I lltsHo11 d iesEi frEFii Wia H .:u :it I-EkE.t:,-r”e tw Li1’F ki xjr ‘1L I._r Er I-I:I :C u :00 Lii ‘ti.t’I 79r I—tcrI E,i<ca#Ej,a1-i I Ii-,lwe’tiL i 7r,i4 I F -tlFI-j r’u’1 H °‘I CISU C r I n r F i flu [OtsIc.-Wd,fmit Ann] fiji [LnlWtihs IcaiIReithzahcm Amni C.2ii.ISiW FrEi IJL*EdI Liii EC Spa or InraIflt SIn CcrIniirnhon Hir El hi IDEC Spa or RflIiri SIn - Eihi IDEC Spa or InrIiri SIn Erwionns-d.td Sin nedhon Didthe] Eihi WFài 231017 id DEC Renixi SW E2s ILIrdc,ie SeobcFsksj E2hi I&ifnce Wahr Fishims] E2hi ISniace 11MIn Fnhues] E2Jt.I ISirInn Wdw Fedweij E2hw Ib,ni Wida des] E21 IF1ooI E2J IIGfls Fk.4ihiui] E2t 15011 Yea FIao4hinJ E2L 1A,i1n E2n.%Ithrd CcrnrdsJ E2o.[Enaqlsnl crTlvtahned Spnãs]Y hil Enidimrwid AsmsiL Fain -EAF Mapper &ririaiy Reçat I E2o.IEnzI w 11.ned Spei -Thi Bids Qdid NJ ______________ E2R RIs orAiiis No E.1a.IApiiIi.Diski No E3c.INohcn Nthz LáwhI No Ead IC1IIC EINJIIiIdRI Aii1 No E3.e.%Idi..I Iwd Hwi Y -iE du Furd bcJJIIIW w r or SI Eh 1 EAF Wixh.k E3e.i [bcnd rn S Isfrr iA I-hsdc Ej pmLyXX SP-48 (1411 G Fasni Rood) or 51 EI Sd - NiieJ —___ Eat LAid do11iSdP _________________________It ELLLIEdR.ckIIIIc.1 __________________________ Flu EIIWIiiCITI Anil Fain -EAF Mapper &rrwaaiy Rt 2 Supplemental Information Figure:Site Logistics -March 2025 through August 2025 39 Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency.Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action.We recognize that the lead agency’s reviewer(s)will not necessarily be environmental professionals.So,the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1.To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2,the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question.When Part 2 is completed,the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area,complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2:Highlighted sections are elaborated in .Review all ofthe information provided in Part 1.Part 3 attachment .Review any application,maps,supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. .Answer each ofthe 18 questions in Part 2. .Ifyou answer “Yes”to a numbered question,please complete all the questions that follow in that section. .Ifyou answer “No”to a numbered question,move on to the next numbered question. .Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. .Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.” .The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. •If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact,it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. •When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity,that is,the “whole action”. •Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. •Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1.Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on,or physical alteration of,LINO YES the land surface ofthe proposed site.(See Part 1.D.l)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,answer questions a -j.If “No “,move on to Section 2. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is E2d Qlessthan3feet. b.The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 1 5%or greater.E2f I El c.The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed,or E2a El generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. d.The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal ofmore than 1,000 tons D2a El ofnatural material. e.The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year Die El or in multiple phases. f.The proposed action may result in increased erosion,whether from physical D2e,D2q El disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). g.The proposed action is,or may be,located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.Bli El h.Other impacts:El Page 1 of 10 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2-Identification of Potential Project Impacts Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project:Icu GFR Field Hockey project:1 Date:IMarch 18,2025 FEAF 2019 2.Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of,or inhibit access to,any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g.,cliffs,dunes,NO EYES minerals,fossils,caves).(See Part 1 .E.2.g) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a_-_c._If “No “,_move_on_to_Section_3. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.Identify the specific land form(s)attached:E2g D b.The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a E3c n registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: c.Other impacts:D o 3.Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water El NO YES bodies (e.g.,streams,rivers,ponds or lakes).(See Part 1 .D.2,E.2.h)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -1._If “No “,_move_on_to_Section_4. Relevant No,or Moderate ,. Part I small to large FA Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may create a new water body.D2b,Dlh Q b.The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease ofover 10%or more than a D2b 11 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area ofany body of water. c.The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material D2a D from a wetland or water body. d.The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or E2h D tidal_wetland,_or in the_bed or banks_ofany_other water body. e.The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody,either from upland erosion,D2a,D2h Q runoff or_by_disturbing_bottom_sediments. f.The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s)for withdrawal D2c of water from surface water. g.The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s)for discharge D2d 11 of wastewater to_surface_water(s). h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion,or otherwise create a source of D2e D stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i.The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or E2h D downstream of the site of the proposed action. j.The proposed action may involve the application ofpesticides or herbicides in or D2q,E2h D around_any water body. k.The proposed action may require the construction of new,or expansion of existing,Dl a,D2d D wastewater treatment facilities. Page 2 of 10 1.Other impacts: 4.Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water,or LNO LI YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1.D.2.a,D.2.c,D.2.d,D.2.p,D.2.q,D.2.t) If “Yes “,answer questions a -h.If “No “,move on to Section 5. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action may require new water supply wells,or create additional demand D2c Li U on supplies from existing water supply wells. b.Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable D2c U U withdrawal capacity rate ofthe local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: c.The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and Dia,D2c U U sewer services. d.The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.D2d,E2l U U e.The proposed action may result in the construction ofwater supply wells in locations D2c,Elf,U U where groundwater is,or is suspected to be,contaminated.Elg,Elh f.The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products D2p,E2l U U over ground water or an aquifer. g.The proposed action may involve the commercial application ofpesticides within 100 E2h,D2q,U U feet ofpotable drinking water or irrigation sources.E2l,D2c h.Other impacts:U U 5.Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding.LI NO I1 YES (See Part 1.E.2) If “Yes “,answer questions a -g.If “No “,move on to Section 6.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large , Question(s)impact impact may ..:mayoccur occur a.The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.‘E2i 11 b.The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.E2j D c.The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.E2k Q d.The proposed action may result in,or require,modification of existing drainage D2b,D2e Q patterns. e.The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.D2b,E2i,Q E2j,E2k f.Ifthere is a dam located on the site of the proposed action,is the dam in need of repair,Ele D or upgrade? Page 3 of 10 g.Other impacts: 6.Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.JNO DYES (See Part 1.D.2.f.,D.2.h,D.2.g) If “Yes “,answer questions a -f If “No “,move on to Section 7. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits,the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i.More than 1000 tons/year ofcarbon dioxide (CO2)D2g D D ii.More than 3.5 tons/year ofnitrous oxide (N20)D2g L iii.More than 1000 tons/year ofcarbon equivalent ofperfluorocarbons (PFCs)D2g D iv.More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)D2g D v.More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of D2g hydrochioroflourocarbons (HFCs)emissions vi.43 tons/year or more ofmethane .D2h EJ C b.The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more ofany one designated D2g C C hazardous air pollutant,or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air_pollutants. c.The proposed action may require a state air registration,or may produce an emissions D2f,D2g C C rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs.per hour,or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 1 0 million BTU’s per hour. d.The proposed action may reach 50%ofany ofthe thresholds in “a”through “c”,D2g C C above. e.The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment ofmore than 1 D2s C C ton ofrefuse per hour. f.Other impacts:C C 7.Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss offlora or fauna.(See Part 1.E.2.m.-q.)ENO LYES If “Yes “,answer questions a -j.If “No “,move on to Section 8.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any E2o Q threatened or endangered species,as listed by New York State or the Federal government,that use the site,or are found on,over,or near the site. b.The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation ofany habitat used by E2o D any rare,threatened or endangered species,as listed by New York State or the federal government. c.The proposed action may cause reduction in population,or loss of individuals,of any E2p Q species of special concern or conservation need,as listed by New York State or the Federal government,that use the site,or are found on,over,or near the site. d.The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by E2p D any species of special concern and conservation need,as listed by New York State or the Federal_government. Page 4of 10 e.The proposed action may diminish the capacity ofa registered National Natural E3c Q• Landmark_to_support_the_biological_community_it_was_established_to_protect. f.The proposed action may result in the removal of,or ground disturbance in,any E2n 0 Q portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: g.The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding,foraging,or E2m Qover-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. h.The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,Elb ‘ grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type &information source: i.Proposed action (commercial,industrial or recreational projects,only)involves use of D2q EJ herbicides or pesticides. j.Other impacts:.D 8.Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources.(See Part 1 .E.3.a.and b.)LINO JYES If “Yes “,answer questions a -h.If “No “,move on to Section 9.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 ofthe E2c,E3b l D NYS_Land_Classification_System. b.The proposed action may sever,cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land Ela,Elb 0 D (includes cropland,hayfields,pasture,vineyard,orchard,etc). c.The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction ofthe soil profile of E3b l D active_agricultural_land. d.The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural Elb,E3a D uses,either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District,or more than 10 acres_if not_within_an_Agricultural_District. e.The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation ofan agricultural land El a,Elb Q management_system. f.The proposed action may result,directly or indirectly,in increased development C2c,C3,0 D potential or pressure on farmland.D2c,D2d g.The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland •C2c l D Protection Plan. h.Other impacts:0 Page 5 of 10 9.Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from,or are in ENO L1 YES sharp contrast to,current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource.(Part 1.E.1.a,E.1.b,E.3.h.)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a_-_g._If_“No “,_go_to_Section_10. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal,state,or local E3h Q scenic or aesthetic resource. b.The proposed action may result in the obstruction,elimination or significant E3h,C2b D screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. C.The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:E3h i.Seasonally (e.g.,screened by summer foliage,but visible during other seasons)D ii.Year round D d.The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed E3h action is: .....E2q, 1.Routine travel by residents,including travel to and from work ii.Recreational or tourism based activities Elc e.The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and E3h D appreciation ofthe designated aesthetic resource. f.There are similar projects visible within the following distance ofthe proposed Dia,Ela,11 project:Dif,Dig 0-1/2 mile Y23 mile 3-5 mile 5+mile g.Otherimpacts:Q 10.Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological ENO 1 YES resource.(Part 1.E.3.e,f.and g.) “,,.“,,.Please See Part 3 Attachment If Yes ,answer questions a -e.If No ,go to Section 11. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may .. may occur occur a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous to,any buildings,archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or E3e D State Register of Historical Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner ofthe NYS Office ofParks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing_on_the_State_Register_of Historic_Places. b.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous E3f D to,an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation_Office_(SHPO)_archaeological_site_inventory. c.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous E3g D to,an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: Page 6 of 10 d.Other impacts:Ij If any of the above (a-d)are answered “Moderate to large impact may e.occur”,continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part E3e,E3g,Q fl ofthe site or property.E3f ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration ofthe property’s setting or E3e,E3f,El C integrity.E3g,Ela, Elb iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which E3e,E3f Q C are out of character with the site or property,or may alter its setting.E3g,E3h, C2,C3 11.Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss ofrecreational opportunities or a NO DYES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1.C.2.c,E.1.c.,E.2.q.) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -e._If_“No “,_go_to_Section_12. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action may result in an impairment ofnatural functions,or “ecosystem D2e,Elb n services”,provided by an undeveloped area,including but not limited to stormwater E2h, storage,nutrient cycling,wildlife habitat.E2m,E2o, E2n,E2p b.The proposed action may result in the loss ofa current or future recreational resource.C2a,Elc,D U C2c,E2g c.The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area C2a,C2c U U with few such resources.Elc,E2q d.The proposed action may result in loss ofan area now used informally by the C2c,Elc U U community as an open space resource. e.Other impacts:U U 12.Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical j NO LI YES environmental area (CEA).(See Part 1 .E.3.d) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -c._If_“No “,_go_to_Section_13. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity ofthe resource or E3d U U characteristic_which_was_the_basis_for_designation_ofthe_CEA. b.The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or E3d U U characteristic_which_was_the_basis_for_designation_of the_CEA. c.Other impacts:U U Page 7 of 10 13.Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems.ENO 1 YES (See Part 1.D.2.j) If “Yes “,answer questions a -f If “No “,go to Section 14.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity ofexisting road network.D2j b.The proposed action may result in the construction ofpaved parking area for 500 or D2j D more vehicles. c.The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.D2j d.The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.D2j Q e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern ofmovement ofpeople or goods.D2j Q f.Otherimpacts: 14.Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy.NO DYES (See Part 1.D.2.k) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -e._If “No “,_go_to_Section_15. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action will require a new,or an upgrade to an existing,substation.D2k D D b.The proposed action will require the creation or extension ofan energy transmission Dif,Li or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a Dlq,D2k commercial_or_industrial_use. c.The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k D d.The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square Dig D feet_of building_area_when_completed. e.Other Impacts: 15.Impact on Noise,Odor,and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise,odors,or outdoor lighting.DNO EYES (See Part 1.D.2.m.,n.,and o.)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,answer questions a -f If “No “,o to Section 16. .- Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may .may occur occur a.The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local D2m Q regulation. b.The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,D2m,Eld U hospital,school,licensed day care center,or nursing home. c.The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o U Page 8 of 10 d.The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n 0 e.The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing D2n,Ela 0 area conditions. f.Other impacts:0 16.Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure LI NO J YES to new or existing sources of contaminants.(See Part 1 .D.2.q.,E.1.d.f.g.and h.)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,answer questions a -m.If “No go to Section 17. - Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may cccur occur a.The proposed action is located within 1500 feet ofa school,hospital,licensed day Eld 0 care center,group home,nursing home or retirement community. b.The site ofthe proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.Elg,Elh 0 c.There is a completed emergency spill remediation,or a completed environmental site Elg,Elh 0 remediation on,or adjacent to,the site ofthe proposed action. d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use ofthe Elg,Elh 0 property (e.g.,easement or deed restriction). e.The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place Elg,Elh 0 to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. f.The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future D2t 0 generation,treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. g.The proposed action involves construction or modification ofa solid waste D2q,Elf 0 management facility. h.The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.D2q,Elf 0 i.The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal,or processing,of D2r,D2s 0 solid waste. j .The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of Elf,Elg 0 a site used for the disposal ofsolid or hazardous waste.Elh k.The proposed action may result in the migration ofexplosive gases from a landfill Elf,Elg 0 site to adjacent off site structures. 1.The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the D2s,Elf,0 project site.D2r m.Other impacts: Page 9 of 10 17.Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans.ENO jYES (See Part 1.C.1 C.2.and C.3.) “,,.“,,.Please See Part 3 Attachment If Yes ,answer questions a -h.If No ,go to Section 18. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action’s land use components may be different from,or in sharp C2,C3,Dla 1J contrast to,current surrounding land use pattern(s).Ela,Elb b.The proposed action will cause the permanent population ofthe city,town or village C2 fl in_which_the_project_is_located_to_grow by more_than_5%. C.The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations.C2,C2,C3 0 d.The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans,or other regional land use C2,C2 0 plans. e.The proposed action may cause a change in the density ofdevelopment that is not C3,Dic,U supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.Did,Dif, Did,Elb f.The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development C4,D2c,D2d U that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.D2j g.The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g.,residential or C2a U commercial development not included in the proposed_action) h.Other:U 18.Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character.NO DYES (See Part 1.C.2,C.3,D.2,E.3) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a_-_g._If “No “,_proceed to_Part_3. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities,structures,or areas E3e,E3f,E3g o of historic_importance_to_the_community. b.The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g.C4 0 0 schools,_police_and_fire) e.The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and C2,C3 0 0 character. f.Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape.C2,C3 0 0 Ela,Eib E2g,E2h g.Otherimpacts:0 c.The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. d.The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. C2,C3,Dif Dig,Eia 0 C2,E3 0 0 J Page 10 of 10 Agency Use Only [IfApplicable] Project :CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey project Date :March 1 8,2025 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 -Evaluation ofthe Magnitude and Importance ofProject Impacts and Determination of Sign ficance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance.The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not,or may,result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3,the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact.By completing the certification on the next page,the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: .Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude.Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. .Assess the importance ofthe impact.Importance relates to the geographic scope,duration,probability ofthe impact occurring,number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. .The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. .Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not,or may,result in a significant adverse environmental impact. .Provide the reason(s)why the impact may,or will not,result in a significant adverse environmental impact •For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s)imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. •Attach additional sheets,as needed. Please See Part 3 Attachment Determination of Significance -Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status:[]Type 1 []Unlisted Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project:[]Part 1 []Part 2 []Part 3 FEAF 2019 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF,as noted,plus this additional support information Applicatinn pickets th’t incliiHe multiple nrrptivps with pdc1itipnI infnrmition and appendices,site pkin cIrnwing, 3rchitectural drawings and elevations,engineering drawings,landscaping,site lighting,Full EAF Part I ,SWPPP.utility and infrastructure drawings,Phase IA and lB Archaeological studies,and associated maps. and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact,it is the conclusion of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency that: El A.This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore,an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. E:J B.Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment,that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because ofthe following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will,therefore,be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned,and,therefore,this conditioned negative declaration is issued.A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 6 17.7(d)). E:c.This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment,and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s)and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts.Accordingly,this positive declaration is issued. Name ofAction:Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Name ofLead Agency:Town of Ithaca Planning Board Name ofResponsible Officer in Lead Agency:Caitlin Cameron Title ofResponsible Officer:Chair Signamre ofResponsible Officer in Lead Agency(Date:f Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)Christine Balestra Date:3/11/2025 For Further Information: Contact Person:Christine Balestra,Senior Planner Address:Town of Ithaca,215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,NY 14850 Telephone Number:(607)273-1 747,ext.I 21 E-mail:cbalestratownithacany.gov For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations,a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g.,Town /City /Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin:http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html ___________________ Page 2 of 2PRINTFULLFORM \\Part 3 —Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts \\&Determination of Significance \•\Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field \\\State Environmental Quality Review \\Full Environmental Assessment Form Action(s):Site Plan proval,Special Permit,Area Variances,Sewer Exemption Location:Game Farm R ad,Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4,62.-2-5,and 62.-2-6 , LeadAgency:Townoflth aPlanningBoard Involved Agencies:Town of thaca Zoning Board of Appeals,Town of Ithaca Tow Board Description:The project involve Site Plan Approval,Special Permit,Area Var nces,and a Sewer Exemption forthe proposed Come Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field pr ect on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the exis ng Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves constructing new ield hockey facilities in two p ses,with phase one including the conversion of the existing grass practi e field into a synthetic tur field along with construction of a new driveway,formalized parking area,p estrian amenities,an two support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building,an a 480 +/-square f ot press box).Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field ho key team,with ocker rooms,meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms,lounge,toilets,showers,nd indoor nthetic turf training space.Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of t e athlet field installation.The project also includes new lighting,landscaping,stormwater facili es,a d other site improvements. The Planning Board will consider granting Site Plan Appr val and Special Permit for the project.The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider area variances r lat d to light pole height and fence height.The Town Board will consider approving a sanitary sewer exem ion,as the project includes construction of an onsite wastewater treatment system rather t an conne ting to an existing municipal system. The proposed action is a Type I Action,pursuant ‘o the New York tate Environmental Quality Review Act,6 NYCRR Part 617,and Chapter 148 of the own of Ithaca Cod regarding Environmental Quality Review,because the proposal involves an ac vity,other than the co truction of residential facilities,that involves the physical alterati ,of 10 acres (6 NYCRR 61 4 (b)(6)(i)),and parking for 100 vehicles (Town Code 148-5.C (3)). 1.ImpactonLand e.The proposed action may involve onstruction that continues for more th one year or in multiple phases. f.The proposed action may resul ‘in increased erosion,whether from physical sturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). Briefly describe the impact on land:The existing project site consists of several large arcels, collectively approximately 123+/-acres in size,that are owned by Cornell University an tilized for various educational purpose1.The properties are bound on the north by Cascadilla Creek,n the south by Ellis Hollow Road (CR 110),on the east by Game Farm Road (CR 173),and on the st by the / Part 3 —Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts &Determination of Significance Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field State Environmental Quality Review Full Environmental Assessment Form Action(s):Site Plan Approval,Special Permit,Area Variances,Sewer Exemption Location:Game Farm Road,Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4,62.-2-5,and 62.-2-6 Lead Agency:Town of Ithaca Planning Board Involved Agencies:Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals,Town of Ithaca Town Board Description:The project involves Site Plan Approval,Special Permit,Area Variances,and a Sewer Exemption for 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 support facilities (a 1,700 +1- 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. The Planning Board will consider granting SitePlan Approval and Special Permit for the project.The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider area variances related to light pole height and fence height.The Town Board will consider approving a sanitary sewer exemption,as the project includes construction of an onsite wastewater treatment system rather than connecting to an existing municipal system. The proposed action is a Type I Action,pursuant to the New York 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)). 1.Impact on Land e.The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. f.The proposed action may result in increased erosion,whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). Briefly describe the impact on land:The existing project site consists of several large parcels, collectively approximately 123+!-acres in size,that are owned by Cornell University and utilized for various educational purposes.The properties are bound on the north by Cascadilla Creek,on the south by Ellis Hollow Road (CR 110),on the east by Game Farm Road (CR 173),and on the west by the 1 existing McGovern soccer fields,the Booth baseball field,and inactive agricultural fields.The East Hill Plaza/Summerhill Apartments are located approximately 3,000 feet west of the proposed project. The project site has been utilized for many years as a grass practice field for the Cornell University soccer program.The existing field,along with the adjacent soccer fields,were granted final site plan approval by the Planning Board in August 2003. The proposed project will involve two phases (described on page 1 above),with Phase I expected to take approximately six months to complete.Phase 2 is not expected to be constructed for another several years.However,the proposed septic system and stormwater management system will be sized to accommodate both project phases.This environmental assessment addresses as much of the full project buildout as is currently foreseeable.The Planning Board,as Lead Agency,will evaluate Phase 2,and,if substantial changes are proposed for Phase 2 or Phase 2 contains elements not already known and addressed in the current environmental review,the Planning Board will reassess the environmental impacts of Phase 2 once it is proposed. The Phase 1 portion of project will generate an expected 300 truck trips over atwo-month period. The application materials explain that truck traffic associated with Phase 1 will utilize Interstate 81 North or South,with trucks leaving the site heading north using NYS Route 366/Dryden Road,and those heading south using Tompkins County roads.It is anticipated that Phase 2 construction will utilize the same routes. The potential for increased erosion and the applicant’s proposed mitigations related to the physical disturbance associated with the project are evaluated in #3 below.Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 3.Impact on Surface Water &5.Impact on Flooding (sections combined due to related impacts) d.The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i.The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site ofthe proposed action. j.The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. k.The proposed action may require the construction of new,or expansion of existing,wastewater treatment facilities. (5.Impact on Flooding) d.The proposed action may result in,or require,modification of existing drainage patterns. Briefly describe the impact on surface water and flooding:Cascadilla Creek is located along the northern edge of the project site and is regulated by the Town of Ithaca Stream Setback Law,which requires a 100’setback from the stream for development of structures and certain land disturbing activities.Most of the proposed improvements will be located at least 400+!-feet from the bank of Cascadilla Creek,however a small portion of the extended detention shallow wetland (proposed for a stormwater practice and explained below),will encroach approximately 25+!-feet into Zone 2 of the 2 setback (the zone farthest from the stream).This is permitted per the Town Code,§270-219.5.E (5) (b),which allows the construction of stormwater ponds and wetlands in stream setback Zone 2. The application materials state that the project site drains to Cascadilla Creek and that “if necessary, a professional will apply pesticides and herbicides to control unwanted vegetation and pests.” However,the project will include erosion and stormwater controls noted below,along with the use of Integrated Pest Management practices that will mitigate potential pesticide impacts to the creek. There will be no pesticide application in or around the proposed extended detention shallow wetland. Soil Erosion,Water Quality/Quantity,&Flooding:The project involves earth-moving activities related to grading and preparing the site for the construction of the outdoor field,buildings,access drive, parking area,landscaping,septic system,and stormwater practices.The application materials state that the proposal will physically disturb 12+!-acres,although the increase in impervious area will only be 3.5+!-acres.This includes the future Phase 2 building construction disturbance. To minimize soil erosion,the proposal includes an erosion and sedimentation control plan with silt fence,stabilized construction entrance,and other standard erosion control measures that will minimize soil tracking off-site and control dust. Regarding water quality treatment for the outdoor synthetic turf field,all water falling on the field will infiltrate through the field itself,which will not contain any infill of any kind.The applicant has chosen the “Greenfields TX Pro Plus”product manufactured by TenCate,which is comprised of UV resistant,low density polyethylene monofilament fibers looped through a woven backing cloth.The turf product is PFAS-free (PEAS means perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances)and consists of recycled plastics,recycled rubber,and a binder material.The proposed turf will comply with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laws and regulations,including the requirements of the NYS Carpet Collection Program Law, Environmental Conservation Law §27-3301 through 37-3319.Section 27-3313 states that “no carpet sold or offered for sale in the state shall contain or be treated with PEAS substances for any purpose.” The applicant will comply with this requirement even though it is not effective until the end of 2026. The applicant will also recycle the turf at its end of life. Runoff from the turf field will convey to a proprietary stormwater filter practice that uses a series of high surface area membrane filter cartridges capable of removing physical particulates of 0.025 millimeters (25 micrometers)or larger.The application materials note that most analytical methods can reliably detect microplastic particles as small as 20 to 50 micrometers.The proposed stormwater filtration system is therefore expected to capture and remove microplastics from stormwater runoff off the field to sizes that are consistent with what is measurable. To provide water quality and quantity treatment of stormwater runoff for the rest of the project (including the Phase 2 building),the applicant proposes to construct an extended detention shallow wetland,which will replace two existing small stormwater wet ponds located to the north that were constructed with the McGovern soccer field project (2003).This,along with two proposed bioretention filters,will capture and treat runoff,and provide water quantity reduction as well.The applicant has submitted a Eull Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)to the Town’s Engineering Department for their review and approval.The applicant has been working with the 3 Engineering Department to provide additional calculations and details that meet NYS DEC permitting requirements. The nearest municipal sewer main is located more than 3,000+!-feet west of the project,on Summerhill Lane.The applicant is therefore proposing an onsite wastewater treatment system, consisting of a 3,500-gallon septic tank and mound absorption bed.The mound absorption system will be located along the south side of the proposed parking lot and has been sized using the NYS DEC Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems.As noted above,the proposed system is designed to accommodate all phases of the project.The private septic system requires a Sanitary Sewer Exemption authorization from the Town Board per Town Code §214-5, along with a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)permit from the NYSDEC,and an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System construction permit from Tompkins Whole Health. Though the proposed septic system and leach field area cover significant space above ground,it is still limited in its capacity and would not induce commercial and residential development as municipal water and sewer availability would.Additionally,the proposed septic system is not located within a floodway or floodplain;the average depth to bedrock is more than ten feet in the area;and the proposed system/leach field is located more than 750+/-feet from Cascadilla Creek and the proposed stormwater wetland and biofiltration practices. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 7.Impact on Plants and Animals j.Other Impacts. Briefly describe the impact on plants and animals:The project site has been previously disturbed with the development of athletic facilities,namely soccer fields,baseball fields,parking areas,access drives,lighting,and stormwater management facilities.The NYS DEC Nature Explorer Mapping program identified two species of dragonfly and two species of plants that have been historically confirmed in the area.The Midland Clubtail and Mocha Emerald dragonflies were last confirmed in the area in 1894 and 1926,respectively.The Delicate Rabbit Tobacco (endangered)and the Three Birds Orchid (threatened)were last confirmed in 1919 and 1922,respectively. The Midland Clubtail inhabits medium to large,moderate to rapid-flowing rivers and streams.Mocha Emeralds inhabit small,shaded streams in forested areas that are about 1-3 yards wide with sand, gravel,or rocky substrates.These habitat characteristics are potentially located within the adjacent Cascadilla Creek stream and streamside areas of the property but are not located within the project site (both phases). Similarly,the Delicate Rabbit Tobacco is found in dry woods and openings (occasionally along roadsides);and the Three Birds Orchid is found in forests,shrublands,and woodlands.If present,they would also likely be located in the woods within and surrounding Cascadilla Creek to the north of the project site. There is no evidence of the presence of the aforementioned plant and animal species on the proposed project site (both phases).Given that the species have not been confirmed on the project site for at least 99 years,and that the site has been previously disturbed and does not contain the 4 habitat to support such species,impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 8.Impact on Agricultural Resources h.Other Impacts. Briefly describe the impact on agricultural resources:The specific project site contains an existing grass soccer field,a gravel drive,and a small gravel parking area.The remainder of the project site is maintained as mowed grass,surrounded by fallow agricultural fields.There are two existing soccer fields and a synthetic turf baseball field on two adjacent properties (stormwater and septic facilities associated with the field hockey project will be located on these parcels).None of the properties have been used for agricultural purposes for many years and are notlocated within or near a Tompkins County Agricultural District. The Town of Ithaca has an Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan that was adopted in November 2011.The plan contains a map that shows a strip of land classified as “Farmland of Statewide Importance”that is approximately 16+!-acres in total across the three properties (attached). However,according to the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan,this project site has not been targeted for agricultural easements or any other agricultural protection.Neither of the proposed project phases will impact the 16+!-acre strip of land. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 9.Impact on Aesthetic Resources c.The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage,but visible during other seasons),and/or year-round. d.The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is routine travel by residents,including to and from work,and recreational or tourism activities. f.There are similar projects visible within 0-1/2 mile of the proposed project. Briefly describe the impact on aesthetic resources:The proposed outdoor field hockey field will replace an existing grass soccer field,located near the edge of Game Farm Road.Those who commute to work in Ithaca via Ellis Hollow Road will likely pass the project on their way to and from work.The nearest development is on the adjacent parcel,which contains two lighted soccer fields and associated structures.The parcel to the west of the soccer fields contains the Booth synthetic turf baseball field,with associated buildings,lighting,signage,parking area,and access drive off Ellis Hollow Road.The new field and associated structures will be visible from Ellis Hollow Road and Game Farm Road year-round. The Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County have established Scenic Resources Inventories that identify significant views in the East Hill/Cornell area.The town’s inventory does identify the corner of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads as “noteworthy”(Chapter 3,view #18).However,the view is not considered significant and therefore was not included in the list of significant views to protect. Although the Booth baseball field is within this viewshed,the proposed outdoor field hockey field is not.The proposed location for the future Phase 2 building is also outside the viewshed.There are no 5 other identified scenic resources around the project site that would be impacted by the proposed development. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 10.Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous to,any buildings,archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Parks,Recreation, and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. b.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous to,an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office archaeological site inventory. Briefly describe the impact on historic and archaeological resources:The project site is not located on or adjacent to any buildings or areas officially listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places.However,an archaeological investigation for the Cornell soccer field project on the same property identified a building associated with a 1930’s Civilian Conservation Corps camp that was located off Game Farm Road,along with the remains of three nineteenth century farms off Ellis Hollow Road,and several Native American sites near Cascadilla Creek. The applicant for the 2021 Booth baseball field project hired Panamerican Consultants Inc.to perform a Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation and Phase lB Archaeological Survey to determine if such archaeological resources existed on the three parcels associated with the current project site.The purpose of the Phase 1A investigation was to research the area to identify if previously recorded archaeological resources would be impacted by the baseball field project.Based on the results of the Phase 1A investigation,the baseball field project did not impact previously identified resources.The purpose of the Phase lB survey was to determine the presence of any new cultural resources in the project area.The Phase lB survey did not unearth Native American artifacts or other artifacts of historical significance.As a result,the Panamerican Consultants did not recommend further i nvestigation . An Archaeological Survey addendum was completed by a consultant with the Public Archaeology Facility in Binghamton in 2024 in association with the current field hockey field project.The results of the survey were included in the application materials for the project and provided to the Planning Board in November 2024.One of the statements in the addendum referenced a previously- investigated site that is located close to the proposed extended detention shallow wetland stormwater facility.The language from the addendum states:“The historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site is still within the original 2003 to 2005 project APEfor the Cornell University Athletic Fields,is intact,and in an undisturbed setting.This component area produced an abundance and diversity of early historic artifacts,possibly associated with a settler cabin or camp,and has the potential to produce significant archaeological information about the early historic periodfor the Town of Ithaca.Although this component area is well outside of the current addendum APE summarized for this report,we are recommending that this specific section of Locus 2 be maintained as an existing agricultural field and not subject to construction connected with the university athletic fields (or any other future development projects). As such,the NYS SHPQ is likely to request an official avoidance plan from the university outlining the methods 6 in which the early historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site will be protectedfrom future athleticfield developments.” All documents prepared by the 2024 consultant were submitted to NYS Office of Parks,Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)via the Cultural Resources Information System (these documents included the details and location for all phases of the project).NYS OPRHP reviewed the reports, determined that no archaeological sites were identified,and concurred with the recommendation that no additional archaeological work would be necessary for the project.Bradley W.Russell,Ph.D. Historic Preservation Specialist with OPRHP,stated in his letter to the applicant’s archaeological consultant on October 18,2024,that “QPRHP has reviewed the Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey reportfor the Addendum to the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (24PR08775)prepared by The Public Archaeology Facility,Binghamton University,Consulting Archaeologists (September 2024;24SR00535).QPRHP concurs with the report recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted.” Although OPRHP recommended no additional archaeological investigation,there should be extra protection of the “CC2 Locus 2”area of the site (see attached map)during construction of the shallow wetland/stormwater facilities associated with the field hockey field project.Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 13.Impact on Transportation e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. Briefly describe the impact on transportation:The project involves replacing an existing gravel entrance off Game Farm Road to access the field hockey project,along with replacing the existing informal parking lot with a new,paved 120-space parking lot (plus two bus parking pull off spaces),to accommodate the field hockey and soccer field uses,including the Phase 2 field hockey clubhouse. Other improvements include pedestrian sidewalks around the parking lot to the soccer fields and new field hockey project,eight bicycle racks that will provide 16 bicycle parking spaces,and a proposed 20-foot wide turnaround access. The existing circulation is characterized by gravel pathways that connect informal parking to the existing McGovern soccer fields and building.The proposal will formalize the parking and improve the connections and access for all users,with paving and striping,access lanes that are wide enough to accommodate fire and emergency vehicles,and ADA-compliant sidewalks and parking spaces.The proposal includes landscaping with native plantings to provide canopy cover to walkways and parking spaces. The application materials include a traffic analysis for the project.According to the analysis,which evaluated the parking needs for both soccer and field hockey team uses,field hockey practices will generate up to 18 vehicle trips between 6:30am and 9:00am,Monday through Friday.Field hockey competitions could generate up to 74 car round trips and two buses in the afternoon/evening hours. Soccer practice (men’s or women’s)would generate 21.5 trips on either end of the 5:00pm to 7:00pm time period,for a total of 43 round trips if both teams practice simultaneously.[Note that the soccer field use is existing,and its impact on traffic was previously analyzed when the soccer fields were approved.] 7 According to the materials,the busiest time period will occur if a field hockey game coincides with practices by both soccer teams,which could happen on a weekend afternoon/evening.The highest demand would generate up to 117 vehicle trips on a fall weekend between the hours of 4:00pm and 7:00pm.This would be considered a small addition of traffic,on a weekend evening (no conflict with typical workday traffic)and would not impact traffic flow for users of Game Farm Road or Ellis Hollow Road,which are both county roads. Like the previous baseball field application,there are no minimum parking requirements established in the Town Code for this type of project and therefore no mechanism for the Planning Board to consider a reduction in required parking.The project is in a residential zone,and the Town Code is silent in terms of parking requirements for an athletic field in a residential zone.The proposed number of parking spaces is based upon detailed projected use for the athletic field functions —which accommodates women’s and men’s soccer practices and field hockey practices and games.Field hockey practices are held in the morning and soccer practices are held in the afternoon,leaving a low likelihood of parking overlapping (except in the case outlined above,which would require up to 117 parking spaces,per the traffic analysis). Given that the project will be constructed on a site that is more than 100 acres in size,there is plenty of space to add future parking if necessary.The applicant would need to come back to the Planning Board for a site plan modification review and approval should they require future parking beyond five more spaces.This would involve another environmental review and analysis of stormwater impacts associated with the additional impervious surface. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 15.Impact on Noise,Odor,and Light a.The proposed action may produce sound above ambient levels established by local regulation. d.The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. Briefly describe the impact on noise and light:The project will create noise impacts during construction of the access road,parking,buildings,and related infrastructure.These impacts will be temporary and will cease once the project is completed. The application materials include an environmental sound analysis to evaluate the proposed public address (PA)system for the project.The PA system has been designed to cover the outdoor playing field and bleachers while minimizing sound to surrounding areas.The system includes seven loudspeakers mounted on three poles to the east side of the field (facing away from Game Farm Road,and toward the field).Three of the speakers will cover the playing field,and the other four will cover the spectator area,including the bleachers and sidelines.It is expected that the PA system will emit sound at 84dB at the center of the playing field,according to the CadnaA modeling software that was used to analyze sound for the project. The calculated sound levels shown in Figure 2 of the sound analysis indicate that sound drops from 84dB in the center of the field to 60dB immediately across Game Farm Road.The nearest residence is located approximately 1,600+!-feet (1/3 mile)south of the proposal,on the east side of Game Farm Road,in the Town of Dryden.Figure 2 indicates that sound will be at 5ObB at this residence,as well as 8 at most residences along the south side of Ellis Hollow Road (there are four residences along Ellis Hollow Road in the affected area).Sound will also be at 5ObB for residents of the Summerhill Apartment complex,located approximately 34 mile west of the project. According to a noise decibel level comparison chart created by Yale Environmental Health and Safety Office,50dB is the equivalent to something between the sound of a suburban area at night and the hum of a household refrigerator.However,the Town of Ithaca does not regulate sound/noise in decibel levels.The Town of Ithaca noise ordinance prohibits “unreasonable noise,”defined as “any excessive or unusually loud sound which either annoys,disturbs,injures,or endangers the comfort, repose,health,peace,or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities.” It is acknowledged from previous environmental reviews in this area of the town that residents who live along Game Farm Road just over the Town of Ithaca/Town of Dryden line have expressed concern about the noise from the existing soccer fields.It is possible that sound impacts could be exacerbated if soccer practices occur at the same time as field hockey games (noted above,weekend afternoons/evenings between 4:00pm and 7:00pm)and/or if field hockey practices during the morning hours (6:30am to 9:30am)are considered a nuisance to neighbors.Although the proposal is not expected to create significant noise impacts,the Planning Board has the authority through the environmental and site plan review and special permit process to control noise associated with construction and other activities.The board could mitigate potential adverse sound impacts in this case by limiting the PA system use to certain times of the day,certain days of the week,or by some other combination of techniques. In terms of lighting,the project includes four 70-feet tall athletic field light poles (two on the east side and two on the west side of the outdoor field)and 22,20-feet tall parking lot light poles.Based on the submitted Lighting Plans,Sheets L6-01,L6-02,and L6-03,the proposed lighting will comply with most of the requirements of the Town Outdoor Lighting Law (Town Code §270-173).It is unclear from the submission whether the shielding for the proposed athletic field light poles comply with Town Code §270-173-9. The law requires all lighting to be fully shielded and angled;and according to page 13 of the application report,the lighting for the field will have a “sharp cutoff”and not a “fully shielded” luminaire.This needs to be clarified.Of note,there are no residences located immediately across the road from the project on Game Farm Road;and the nearest residences on the west side of the project are located Y mile west,on Summerhill Lane.Based on the photometric information provided,these residences are unlikely to be affected by potential light glare associated with the project and the proposal is not expected to create significant impacts due to lighting.However,as in the noise impact section above,the Planning Board could mitigate potential adverse lighting impacts by limiting hours of operation to certain times of the day,certain days of the week,or by some other combination of techniques. The specification sheets for the parking lot lights indicate that the LED lights can be 3000K,4000K,or 5000K.As noted in other environmental reviews,the Outdoor Lighting law is currently silent in terms of LED color temperature,which equates to the perceived color of a light (warmer yellow lights versus cooler blue/white lights).Wherever possible,the Planning Board has been following the recommendations in the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council LED Advisory Guidelines,which suggest streetlighting and other outdoor lighting have no more than a 3000K color 9 temperature (toward yellow or warm).For this project,it will not be possible for the applicant to modify the required color temperature for the field lights,but the applicant should consider using LEDs with a color temperature of 3000K for the parking lot lights,particularly in this part of Game Farm Road,where there is low to moderate ambient lighting. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 16.Impact on Human Health f.The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment,and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. Briefly describe the impact:Phase 1 of the project includes the replacement of a natural grass athletic field with an outdoor synthetic turf field.Phase 2 of the project includes the construction of a 14,000+!-square foot clubhouse for the field hockey team,with locker rooms,meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms,lounge,toilets,showers,and indoor synthetic turf training space.The proposed turf for both phases will comply with NYS DEC and US EPA laws and regulations,including the requirements of the NYS Carpet Collection Program Law,Environmental Conservation Law §27- 3301 through 37-3319.Section 27-3313 states that “no carpet sold or offered for sale in the state shall contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose.”The applicant will comply with this requirement even though it is not effective until the end of 2026.The proposed fields will not contain any infill of any kind.The applicant has chosen the “Greenfields TX Pro Plus”product manufactured by TenCate,which is comprised of UV-resistant,low density polyethylene monofilament fibers looped through a woven backing cloth.The turf product is PFAS-free and consists of recycled plastics, recycled rubber,and a binder material.Because the product is PFAS-free (as will be confirmed in both phases by an independent testing laboratory prior to the product’s delivery to the project site), information provided to the Planning Board about the effects of PFAS are not relevant to this project. Similarly,because the fields will not contain infill,information provided to the Planning Board about the effects of chemicals found in various types of infill are not relevant to this project. The application materials state the turf blades for the selected turf product are 100%linear low density polyethylene.Low density polyethylene is also used for food packaging,packaging film, squeezable bottles,pipes/tubing,and medical/health care items.The application materials state that since polyethylene is made from a polymer that is stable at high temperatures,it is inert and is not associated with any known health effects,nor is it considered to be carcinogenic by national and world health agencies.The polyethylene Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)that is linked in the application supports these assertions. The application materials further state the selected turf product also contains additives that include heavy metal-free pigments,dulling agents,and UV stabilizers which are encapsulated in the polymer, meaning that exposure to them does not occur and they therefore do not pose a health concern. Regarding heat issues for the outdoor field,the application materials state that while synthetic turf field surfaces do get warmer than natural turf field surfaces,synthetic field surfaces do not retain heat once daytime heating is discontinued.These differences are substantially minimized on cloudy days and do not exist on overcast days.In that respect,synthetic turf fields are different than urban 10 systems (aggregate buildings,roof tops,and pavement)which are associated with contributing to heat island effects because those materials continue to release heat well into the nighttime hours. Given the relatively small size of the field in relation to the 123 acre project site and 506 total acres owned by the applicant in the project vicinity,heat island effects from the outdoor field are not expected to be significant.The applicant’s proposed measures to protect the student-athletes from sports-related heat stress (Cornell Athletics Sports Medicine staff monitoring of heat and humidity, early communication with Cornell Athletics staff and student-athletes)will mitigate the health effects from elevated surface temperatures. The project will convey stormwater runoff from the outdoor field to a proprietary stormwater filter practice that uses a series of high surface area membrane filter cartridges capable of removing physical particulates of 0.025 millimeters (25 micrometers)or larger.The application materials note that most analytical methods can reliably detect microplastic particles as small as 20 to 50 micrometers.The proposed stormwater filtration system is expected to capture and remove microplastics from stormwater runoff off the field to sizes as small as 20 to 50 micrometers. Finally,the applicant is committed to recycling the synthetic turf from both fields at the end of their life.Recycling facilities under consideration include Turf Recyclers in Rockland Maryland (opening May 2025)and re[TURN]Reclamation Program in Dalton,Georgia. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 17.Consistency with Community Plans c.The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. Briefly describe the impact:The project is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map but requires area variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals.These variances are needed because Cornell University is an educational/institutional use in a residential zone,which occurs because the Town of Ithaca doesn’t currently have an Institutional zoning designation.Ithaca College,Cornell University,and other institutional uses are therefore restricted to residential height and area requirements.This project contains light poles that are required to be much taller than a residential structure (p270-59 of Town Code requires a structure height not to exceed 30 feet tall, where the proposed external light poles are approximately 70 feet in height and the proposed camera pole is 35 feet in height).The project also requires fence heights associated with the outdoor athletic field that wouldn’t typically be found on a residential property (270-223,ofTown Code, requires a maximum fence height of 6 feet,where the fence proposed for the netting located on the north and south sides of the field is 30 feet).The proposed variances are not expected to create significant adverse environmental impacts,given the location of the project in an area with other athletic fields with similarly tall light poles and fences and not located within or near a significant view,as identified in the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventories. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 11 Staff Recommendation,Determination of Significance A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed, based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action,the information above,and analysis of the magnitude and importance of the project impacts.Once Phase 2 project details are proposed,the Planning Board,as Lead Agency,will look at whether the negative determination of environmental significance should be reconsidered if substantial changes are proposed for Phase 2 or Phase 2 contains elements not already known and addressed in the current review. Lead Agency:Town of Ithaca Planning Board—Site Plan Approval,Special Permit Involved Agencies:Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals-Variances Town of Ithaca Town Board—Sewer Exemption Reviewer:Christine Balestra,Senior ann Review Date:March 11,2025 12 http://www.dec.nygov/natureexplorer/ New York Nature Explorer User Defined Results Report Criteria:Selected Map Area \ Tompkins County Common Name Subgroup Distribution Year Last Protection Status Conservation Rank Status Documente State Federal State Global Animal:Dragonflies and Damselflies HistoricallyMidlandclubtailDragonfliesconfirmed 1894 S3 G5 Gomphurusfraternus Historically 1926 S2S3 G5MochaEmeraldDragonfliesconfirmed Somatochiora linearis Plant:Flowering Plants Asters,Goldenrods and HistoricallyDelicateRabbitTobacco 1919 Endangered SH G4G5T3?Daisies confirmed Pseudognaphalium micradenium Historically 1922 Threatened S2 G4?T4?Three Birds Orchid Orchids confirmed Triphoru trianthophoros ssp. trianthophoros New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Page 1 of 2 E 3/7/25 3:40 PM New York Nature Explorer Common Name Subgroup Distribution Year Last Protection Status Conservation Rank Status Documente State Federal State Global Note:Restricted plants and animals may also have also been documented in one or more of the Towns or Cities in which your user-defined area is located,but are not listed in these results.This application does not provide information at the level of Town or City on state-listed animals and on other sensitive animals and plants.A list of the restricted animals and plants documented at the corresponding county level can be obtained via the County link(s)on the original User Defined Search Results page.Any individual plant or animal on this county’s restricted list may or may not occur in this particular user-defined area. This list only includes records of rare species and significant natural communities from the databases of the NY Natural Heritage Program.This list is not a definitive statement about the presence or absence of all plants and animals,including rare or state-listed species,or of all significant natural communities.For most areas,comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted,and this list should not be considered a substitute for on-site surveys. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Page 2 of 2 3/7/25 3:40 PM Farmland Targeted for Protection Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan W•E Map Produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department November 2011 Data Source: Town of Ithaca Planning Department & Tompkins County Information Technology Services GlS Division Town o Lansing of Lansing -_______ FINAL MAP9 A- Privately Owned and Operated Farmland Cornell University and State Owned Agricultural Research Land ——‘Mile 0 0.5 1 Note:Areas identified are approximate. W•E Map Produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department November 2011 Data Source: Town of Ithaca Planning Department & Tompkins County Information Technology Services GIS Division Agricultural Soils Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan I FINAL MAP 5 USDA Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance —‘Mile 0 0.5 1 Soil Map—Tompkins County,New York 42 26 28”N 42 26’28”N 42 2 53”N 42 25 53”N k Map Scale:1:5,270 if printed on A portrait (8.5”xli”)sheet N o so ioo 0 250 500 1000 1500 Map projection:Web Mercator Comercoordinat:WG584 Edge tics:LJTM Zone 18N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources 3/6/2025 Conservation Service Page 1 of 3 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Soil Map—Tompkins County,New York MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOl) Area of Interest (AOl) Soils El Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines •Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features (2)Blowout Borrow Pit *Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot O Landfill Lava Flow Marsh orswamp MineorQuarry Miscellaneous Water o Perennial Water Rock Outcrop +Saline Spot ::Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background •Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:20,000. 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 ofthe 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. !SDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 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. Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Page 2 of 3 :VJ Soil Map—Tompkins County New York r Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOl Percent of AOl BaC Bath channery silt loam,5 to 2.1 1.6% 15 percent slopes BtF Bath,Valois,and Lansing soils,0.1 0.1% 35 to 60 percent slopes CdC Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 16.1 12.2% 15 percent slopes EbB Erie channery silt loam,3 to 8 56.6 42.9% percent slopes EcA Chippewa and Alden soils,0 to 1.4 1.1% 8 percent slopes ErA Erie-Chippewa channery silt 0.6 0.4% loams,0 to 3 percent slopes - HsB Hudson silty clay loam,2 to 6 3.8 2.9% percent slopes HsC3 Hudson silty clay loam,6 to 12 6.5 4.9% percent slopes,eroded HsD3 Hudson silty clay loam,12 to 0.5 0.4% 20 percent slopes,eroded LaB Langford channery silt loam,2 3.0 2.3% to 8 percent slopes LaC Langford channery silt loam,8 8.8 6.6% to 15 percent slopes LtB Lordstown,Tuller,and Ovid 0.3 0.2% soils,shallow and very shallow,0 to 15 percent slopes Mm Madalin mucky silty clay loam 4.6 3.5% PhB Phelps gravelly silt loam,3 to 8 3.3 2.5% percent slopes RkB Rhinebeck silt loam,2 to 6 20.4 15.5% percent slopes VbB Volusia channery silt loam,3 to 1.1 0.9% .8 percent slopes . VbC Volusia channery silt loam,8 to 2.7 2.0% 15 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 132.0 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description:Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 15 percent slopes---Tompkins County, New York Tompkins County,New York CdC—Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol:9x16 Elevation:600 to I 800 feet Mean annualprecipitation:32 to 42 inches Mean annual air temperature:45 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period:120 to 160 days Farmland classification:Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Chenango and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Estimates are based on obseniations,descriptions,and transects of the mapunit. Description of Chenango Setting Landform:Terraces,valley trains Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Gravelly loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits,derived mainly from sandstone,shale,and siltstone Typical profile HI -0 to 8 inches:gravelly loam H2 -8 to 26 inches:gravelly silt loam H3 -26 to 60 inches:very gravelly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity ofthe most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply,0 to 60 inches:Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated):None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated):3e Hydrologic Soil Group:A Ecological site:Fl 40XY021 NY -Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating:No USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 15 percent slopes---Tompkins County, NewYork £{1I Minor Components Tioga Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Howard Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Red hook Percent of map Unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Braceville Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area:Tompkins County,New York Survey Area Data:Version 20,Aug 29,2024 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Public Archaeok -03PR00922,Addendum Phase 1 Report P”’142 0 30 60 90 m 0 100 200 ft same FarrnRo Addendum APE Addendum Survey STPs (n=64) •STP w/Historic or Modern •STP w/no artifacts ‘“s Cornell Athletic Fields APE (PAF investigations 2003-2005) IEJ Cornell Gas Line APE (PAF investigations 2006-2007) Historic Component_Interpolated Artifacts High Frequency Low Frequency Page 1 of 2 PB RESOLUTION 2025-014: SEQR Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4, 62.-2-5, 62.-2-6 Game Farm Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board March 18, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of a SEQR determination for 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 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 Van Leeuwen, Fisher Associates, 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)); 3. At its meeting on November 19, 2024, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board (1) reviewed 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; and (2) 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, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, on January 7, 2025, established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- described proposal; 5. The Planning Board, on March 4, 2025, discussed the environmental review and directed the Planning staff to draft the Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 2 and 3 to support a negative determination of environmental significance for the Planning Board’s discussion and consideration at its March 18, 2025, meeting; 6. The Planning Board, on March 18, 2025, has accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff, the materials noted in Whereas #3 above; additional materials in a binder titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Supplemental Materials Submission,” dated January 31, 2025, prepared PB 2025-014 (Filed 3/19) Page 2 of 2 by Fisher Associates; additional supplemental materials in a binder titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Supplemental Materials Submission,” dated February 21, 2025, prepared by Fisher Associates; written and oral public comments and documents submitted by the public; and other materials; 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 proposal, based on the information in the Full EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the Full EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. 1 Paulette Rosa From:David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov> Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2025 2:58 PM To:Paulette Rosa Subject:FW: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca David O'Shea, P.E. Director of Engineering/Town Engineer Town of Ithaca 607-273-1656 ext 257 From: Nicholson, Brian M (DEC) <Brian.Nicholson@dec.ny.gov> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 3:33 PM To: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Cc: David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Hanas, Debra (DEC) <Debra.Hanas@dec.ny.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca Hi JusƟn, I reviewed a design manual from Aug. 2003 and I didn’t find the requirement to model ag land as meadow cover type back then, so I don’t want to hold them to that design standard from the design they developed in 2002/3. They can design the stormwater pracƟces based on the current site as exisƟng condiƟons and design the stormwater pracƟces accordingly to the new development. If your team has documentaƟon showing they were required to meet “Meadow cover” during the 2003 design, then we can look at holding them to that design standard. Thanks, Brian Brian M. Nicholson, P.E. Professional Engineer 1 (Env.) Region 7, Division of Water New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 5786 Widewaters Parkway, Syracuse, NY 13214-1867 P: 315-426-7530 | F: 315-426-7459 | brian.nicholson@dec.ny.gov www.dec.ny.gov | | From: Nicholson, Brian M (DEC) Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 3:58 PM To: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Cc: David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Hanas, Debra (DEC) <Debra.Hanas@dec.ny.gov>; Emily Rodgers 2 <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca Hi JusƟn, I’ve sent out a couple of emails to see what my colleagues think about this situaƟon. I’ll get back to you next week with an answer. Thanks, Brian From: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 8:07 AM To: Hanas, Debra (DEC) <Debra.Hanas@dec.ny.gov>; Nicholson, Brian M (DEC) <Brian.Nicholson@dec.ny.gov> Cc: David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Subject: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good Morning Deb and Brian, We would like some clarification regarding a proposed project in the Town of Ithaca. The project is proposing to convert an existing natural turf grass field with underdrains into a synthetic turf field along with a few small buildings, spectator facilitie total of 4 natural turf grass fields with underdrains, a gravel parking lot and driveway, and a metal building with locker rooms and bathrooms. As part of the original project in 2003, 2 stormwater ponds were installed for both water quality treatment and quantity attenuation. wetland practice. At the time the SWPPP was approved in 2003, the applicant modeled the precondition as row crop. Only one of the natural grass turf fields will be disturbed during this project, the remaining 3 with remain undisturbed. Now that they are proposing to remove the 2 stormwater ponds with this project and install a new practice for attenuation, we are thinking the applicant should model the pre-condition as meadow prior to the 2003 project not the current pond outflows (which are based on the natural turf fields with under drains being considered a pervious surface). Our rational is based on recent guidance received from DEC pertaining to natural turf fields with underdrains being considered an impervious surface. How should this be handled? Should the applicant be required to re-evaluate the quantity attenuation for the entire site with the pre-construction condition being the condition prior to the 2003 project or can they use the pre- condition as the pond discharge rates which were developed based on the fields being considered as pervious? The question is ultimately being posed because a new attenuation practice is being installed to replace the ponds. Sincerely, Justin McNeal Civil Engineer Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept. 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Some people who received this message don't often get email from jmcneal@townithacany.gov. Learn why this is important 3 W: (607)-273-1656 Ext. 260 C: (607)-220-8342 1 Paulette Rosa From:David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov> Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2025 2:58 PM To:Paulette Rosa Subject:FW: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo David O'Shea, P.E. Director of Engineering/Town Engineer Town of Ithaca 607-273-1656 ext 257 From: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:47 AM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Cc: Abby Homer <ahomer@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo Hello Chris, Yep, we would like to send them out to the applicant team so they can get a jump on the comments. We have had a couple of quick conversations with the Engineer, they have asked if we had reviewed the materials submitted and if we have any comments. We understand that they may need to change things as the Planning Board reviews materials, but we are also trying to coordinate reviews between the multiple Dev Rev projects. We would like to have this comment letter out to them before they send in the next set of revisions to limit the number of times we are reviewing the materials. Thank You, Justin McNeal Civil Engineer Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept. 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 W: (607)-273-1656 Ext. 260 C: (607)-220-8342 From: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:30 AM To: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov>; David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Cc: Abby Homer <ahomer@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo 2 Thanks Justin. This information is fantastic, but extremely premature. The PB hasn’t even decided to be the lead agency in the environmental review. And there’s a good chance that plans (and SWPPP) will need modification, as the project does go through the environmental review. We are about two steps away from that now. Are you sure you don’t want to hang onto these comments until a later phase of review (e.g., SEQR determination, or preliminary site plan review)? Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1721, ext. 121 cbalestra@townithacany.gov From: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 10:53 AM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: Abby Homer <ahomer@townithacany.gov> Subject: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo Good Morning Chris, We have completed our initial review of the Game Farm Field Hockey project. Could you please send this out to the project team? If you would like me to upload it somewhere specific instead, please let me know. Have a good weekend, Justin McNeal Civil Engineer Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept. 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 W: (607)-273-1656 Ext. 260 C: (607)-220-8342 605 W. State Street | Ithaca, NY 14850 | phone 607-272-6477 | fax 607-273-6322 | www.tgmillerpc.com David A. Herrick, P.E. Frank L Santelli, P.E. Owen B. Barden, P.E. Donald M. Harner, P.E. LEED A.P., C.P.E.S.C. Lee Dresser, L.S. Jacqueline L. Dresser, L.S. March 14, 2025 Kimberly Van Leeuwen, RLA Director of Landscape Architecture Fisher Associates 1001 W. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Town of Ithaca SWPPP Review Comments Dear Ms. Van Leeuwen: Below please find our responses to review comments dated December 6, 2024 and prepared by David O’Shea, P.E. for the above referenced project. For ease of review, original review comments are re-stated and our responses are included in bold type. Sewer: 1.Prior to Final Site Plan Approval Submission, A Sewer Exemption Request must be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department regarding the proposed septic system. The request will go before the Public Works Committee and the Town Board for review and approval. TGM Response: Acknowledged, a sewer exemption request was submitted to the Town by Cornell University on March 7, 2025. 2.All plan sheets should be updated to show the existing septic system filter area and proposed filter area. These areas should be delineated to be protected during construction. TGM Response: The existing septic system is noted on all project drawings and notes are added to protect these areas. Stormwater: 1.The complete SWPPP and associated documents will need to be uploaded to OpenGov under a SWPPP application and fee paid once they have been approved. TGM Response: The SWPPP will be uploaded to OpenGov and the application fee will be paid. 2.Revise the table of contents to correct page numbers and remove unused chapters. TGM Response: The table of contents has been revised accordingly. 3.Please update the SWPPP to include information and associated requirements for seeking a 5-ac waiver for disturbance. TGM Response: Page 1 of the SWPPP includes language regarding the need for written authorization prior to disturbing 5 acres. T.G. Miller, P.C. 2 4.Please indicate which version of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual was used for this project. TGM Response: The 2015 New York State Stormwater Management Desing Manual was used for the project. 5.Please update the Vol. I narrative regarding fill sites. If the fill site is within an MS4, the MS4 must approve the site and sign onto the SWPPP. TGM Response: Based on recent communications with NYSDEC Region 7 Staff, we have learned that remote fill sites (i.e. greater than ¼-mile from the project) do not need to sign onto the project SWPPP. It is still the responsibility of any fill site owner to comply with local and NYSDEC regulations pertaining to soil disturbance activities on the land of those fill sites. The written communications between TGM and NYSDEC will be shared with the Town Engineer. The SWPPP has been revised to reflect this. 6.Please update the SWPPP narrative to correctly and consistently identify the onsite soil groups. Dual soil groups are identified in the mapping. Please elaborate on what value you are using and why. TGM Response: The dual soil groups identified in the USDA soil survey have been added to on-site soil section of the SWPPP narrative. For areas where dual soil groups have been identified, they are assumed to have a HSG rating of “D”. This assumption is based on the onsite infiltration and percolation testing conducted (Please see response to comment #14 for additional information). Additionally, the previously approved 2003 SWPPP utilized a HSG rating of “D” for all dual soil group areas. 7.Please update existing tables or provide additional tables identifying the amount of new impervious per watershed. The map provided does not provide this information as you are modifying drainage boundaries. TGM Response: After further conversation with the Town Engineering staff this comment is no longer applicable. 8.Update the narrative to provide information on how the turf field will drain and get into the drainage system. TGM Response: The SWPPP narrative has been updated accordingly. 9.There are discrepancies between the SWPPP narrative and the site map regarding impervious and pervious acreage. Please provide clarification. If the main outer watershed boundary is not changing, Table 1 and Table 2 area summations should be equal. TGM Response: The SWPPP has been revised to address these discrepancies. 10.In Watershed 4, the narrative states the area is 11.73 acres of impervious surface, most of the area is pervious lawn. Please clarify this discrepancy. TGM Response: Existing watershed #4 has 0.86 acres of impervious cover, not 11.73. This has been revised in both the SWPPP narrative and on the existing watershed map. 11.The narrative references a Min Rv number of 0.2, but this value is not used in the water quality volume or runoff reduction calculations. Please revise the calculations accordingly. TGM Response: Calculations have been revised accordingly. T.G. Miller, P.C. 3 12.Please clarify why RRv is not being provided for impervious areas that are being disturbed. TGM Response: All existing impervious areas that will be disturbed are in Watersheds #4A and #5. The required RRv for each is 1,210 CF and 2,510 CF, respectively. Bioretention filter #1, located within watershed #4A, provides 1,716 CF of RRv while bioretention filter #2, located within watershed #5, provides 3,098 CF. It should be noted, there are sections of existing impervious area, a large portion of the gravel driveway, that is being restored to pervious lawn. 13.Please provide the borings logs as indicated in the SWPPP. They are not included. TGM Response: Boring logs have been attached to the SWPPP. 14.Please be more specific on why site limitations exist. Please include the definition and which criteria allows them to be utilized. TGM Response: Percolation testing was conducted at different locations throughout the site as part of the 2003 McGovern soccer field project geotechnical explorations. The results of these tests indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Additionally, the boring logs indicate a high prevalence of clay soils throughout the site. In support of the current project’s septic system design, T.G. Miller, P.C. conducted percolation testing. The results also indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Furthermore, the USDA soil survey report for the project indicates that the underlying soil for a large percentage of the project has hydrologic soils group rating of “D” or “C/D”. The geotechnical report has been attached to the SWPPP. 15.Sediment Traps and Sediment Basins are both called out in the narrative and plan set. Please verify which is being proposed. Please provide associated calculations and details as required by the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Blue Book). TGM Response: All references to sediment traps have been removed. Sediment basin calculations and topography have been added to drawing C102. 16.Update the plan set to include a Concrete Washout Area and its associated construction detail. TGM Response: A concrete washout detail has been added to the drawings. 17.Please revise the plan set to include the following details: •Sediment Trap or Sediment Basin TGM Response: See response to comment #15. •Rock Check Dam TGM Response: A Rock Check Dam detail has been added. •Bioretention Filter Forebay and Weir. Please review this with the landscape plan relative to soils and vegetation requirements that differ between the forebay and the filter area. TGM Response: Bioretention filter and forebay plantings have been coordinated with landscape plans. •Extended Detention Short Wetland TGM Response: An enlarged plan of the extended detention ‘shallow’ T.G. Miller, P.C. 4 wetland has been added to the drawings. 18.Please add the following items to the plan set. •Include mound septic system on proposed drainage plan C105. TGM Response: The mound septic system has been added to C105. •Silt sock detail on Sheet C102 needs to be revised to match the Blue Book. TGM Response: The silt log detail on C102-3 has been revised. •Indicate material staging area on plan. Please note this area must be on a stabilized surface. TGM Response: The contractor material staging area has been added to all ESC plans. •Add winter stabilization procedures to the plan set. TGM Response: Winter stabilization notes have been to the ESC plans. •Indicate stream setbacks on all plan sheets. Please verify this setback was determined in accordance with the Code of the Town of Ithaca and accounts for any steep slopes that may be present. TGM Response: The stream setback has been added to all applicable plans where the viewport and scale allows. The stream setback shown was calculated in accordance with Town of Ithaca Code, inclusive of adjacent steep slopes. 19.Identify the length of the tracking pads. TGM Response: The length of the tracking pads has been added to the ESC plans. 20.Provide erosion and sediment control plan for phasing. TGM Response: Three erosion and sediment control plans have been prepared to reflect phasing. 21.Contour labels need to be added to the drainage plan in the stormwater practices where they are not provided on the grading plan. It would be beneficial for the contours in their entirety to be labeled on the drainage plan. TGM Response: Contour labels have been added within the extended detention shallow wetland. 22.There appears to be a difference between the drainage plan and grading plan. Please review and update accordingly. TGM Response: Drainage plan and grading plan have been coordinated. 23.The demo plan incorrectly identifies which pipe is being removed at the western pond. TGM Response: The demo plan has been revised accordingly. 24.Please review the existing catch basins and proposed grading plan. There are numerous basins around the proposed field that will need adjustments. Please review these basins and with other site improvements. There appears to be conflicts depicted in the plan set. TGM Response: Notes have been added to the drainage plan indicating rim elevation adjustments to all existing catch basins. All conflicts with site improvements have been resolved. 25.Please identify how the existing field drains (labeled tile outlet) will be handled. T.G. Miller, P.C. 5 TGM Response: Existing field drains will be daylighted into the proposed swale. A note has been added to drawing C105. 26.Update landscaping plans to identify native planting are required as mentioned in the SWPPP narrative. TGM Response: The landscaping plans have been revised accordingly. 27.The modeling of existing conditions must align with the post-conditions outlined in the 2003 SWPPP. This includes accurately representing the field conditions as pervious in the pre-condition per the 2003 SWPPP and now impervious for the post condition based on DEC’s current guidance. The ponds shall be modeled according to their post conditions in 2003 and incorporating any missing stormwater structures into the model. TGM Response: Below is a table summarizing the post-development peak discharge rates for both the 2003 McGovern SWPPP and the current CU GFR SWPPP. For the purposes of a pre- versus post-development comparison, the rates from 2003 SWPPP shall be considered as the pre-developed condition per the above Town review comment. As can be seen, the post-development peak discharge is attenuated for the 1, 10, and 100-yr storm events by the proposed stormwater management approach. The SWPPP narrative will be revised to consider the 2003 SWPPP post development runoff rates as the pre- development rates for the current project. 28.Please provide additional information supporting your design that water will be conveyed to the attenuation device. Current modeling indicates that the structures are overtopping. TGM Response: Regarding diversion structure #1, runoff that may surcharge out of the structure will be captured by downstream drainage structures. If for any reason those structures become plugged and are not able to function, then all runoff will be conveyed to the attenuation device via the overland flow path between fields 3 & 4. Regarding diversion structure #2, the HydroCAD model has been revised so that runoff is no longer surcharging. 29.There are numerous discrepancies between the plan set and the HydroCad calculations. Please revise the materials accordingly. The calculations were not reviewed in detail due to the discrepancies. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised to be consistent with applicable device rims, inverts, and typical details.. 30.Please add the filters to the hydraulic modeling to verify how these systems are acting during the larger storm events (are they overtopping, do the overflow catch basins handle everything, etc.). TGM Response: Both bioretention filters have been added to the HydroCAD model. 31.Diversion Structure 2 appears to be overtopping into the bioretention filter. Provide T.G. Miller, P.C. 6 calculations for the wetland as described in Chapter 6 section 1 and 2 of the Stormwater Management Design Manual. Note stormwater wetlands must also meet the requirements of Stormwater Ponds. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised and diversion structure #2 no longer surcharges. Calculations have been added to Volume 1 of the SWPPP. Respectfully, David A. Herrick, P.E. Comment # = Plan Revision Required Comment # = Needs to be Completed Comment # = Completed Sewer: 1. Prior to Final Site Plan Approval Submission, A Sewer Exemption Request must be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department regarding the proposed septic system. The request will go before the Public Works Committee and the Town Board for review and approval. TGM Response: Acknowledged, a sewer exemption request will be submitted prior to final site plan. 2. All plan sheets should be updated to show the existing septic system filter area and proposed filter area. These areas should be delineated to be protected during construction. TGM Response: The existing septic system will be noted on all project drawings and notes will be added to protect these areas. Stormwater: 1. The complete SWPPP and associated documents will need to be uploaded to OpenGov under a SWPPP application and fee paid once they have been approved. TGM Response: The SWPPP will be uploaded to OpenGov and the application fee will be paid. 2. Revise the table of contents to correct page numbers and remove unused chapters. TGM Response: The table of contents has been revised accordingly. 3. Please update the SWPPP to include information and associated requirements for seeking a 5-ac waiver for disturbance. TGM Response: Page 1 of the SWPPP includes language regarding the need for written authorization prior to disturbing 5 acres. 4. Please indicate which version of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual was used for this project. TGM Response: The 2015 New York State Stormwater Management Desing Manual was used for the project. 5. Please update the Vol. I narrative regarding fill sites. If the fill site is within an MS4, the MS4 must approve the site and sign onto the SWPPP. TGM Response: Based on recent communications with NYSDEC Region 7 Staff, we have learned that remote fill sites (i.e. greater than ¼-mile from the project) do not need to sign onto the project SWPPP. It is still the responsibility of any fill site owner to comply with local and NYSDEC regulations pertaining to soil disturbance activities on the land of those fill sites. The written communications between TGM and NYSDEC will be shared with the Town Engineer. 6. Please update the SWPPP narrative to correctly and consistently identify the onsite soil groups. Dual soil groups are identified in the mapping. Please elaborate on what value you are using and why. TGM Response: The dual soil groups identified in the USDA soil survey have been added to on-site soil section of the SWPPP narrative. For areas where dual soil groups have been identified, they are assumed to have a HSG rating of “D”. This assumption is based on the onsite infiltration and percolation testing conducted (Please see response to comment #14 for additional information). Additionally, the previously approved 2003 SWPPP utilized a HSG rating of “D” for all dual soil group areas. 7. Please update existing tables or provide additional tables identifying the amount of new impervious per watershed. The map provided does not provide this information as you are modifying drainage boundaries. TGM Response: The proposed watershed map will be updated to distinguish between existing and new imperious cover per watershed. 8. Update the narrative to provide information on how the turf field will drain and get into the drainage system. TGM Response: The SWPPP narrative has been updated accordingly. 9. There are discrepancies between the SWPPP narrative and the site map regarding impervious and pervious acreage. Please provide clarification. If the main outer watershed boundary is not changing, Table 1 and Table 2 area summations should be equal. TGM Response: The SWPPP has been revised to address these discrepancies. 10. In Watershed 4, the narrative states the area is 11.73 acres of impervious surface, most of the area is pervious lawn. Please clarify this discrepancy. TGM Response: Existing watershed #4 has 0.86 acres of impervious cover, not 11.73. This has been revised in both the SWPPP narrative and on the existing watershed map. 11. The narrative references a Min Rv number of 0.2, but this value is not used in the water quality volume or runoff reduction calculations. Please revise the calculations accordingly. TGM Response: For watershed #4A, a Min. RRv HSG reduction factor of 0.2 was used. This value is represented on the Water Quality Volume calculation sheet included in volume II. Please note, a value of 0.3 was used for watershed #5. 12. Please clarify why RRv is not being provided for impervious areas that are being disturbed. TGM Response: All existing impervious areas that will be disturbed are in Watersheds #4A and #5. The required RRv for each is 1,210 CF and 2,510 CF, respectively. Bioretention filter #1, located within watershed #4A, provides 1,716 CF of RRv while bioretention filter #2, located within watershed #5, provides 3,098 CF. It should be noted, there are sections of existing impervious area, a large portion of the gravel driveway, that is being restored to pervious lawn. 13. Please provide the borings logs as indicated in the SWPPP. They are not included. TGM Response: Boring logs have been attached to the SWPPP. 14. Please be more specific on why site limitations exist. Please include the definition and which criteria allows them to be utilized. TGM Response: Percolation testing was conducted at different locations throughout the site as part of the 2003 McGovern soccer field project geotechnical explorations. The results of these tests indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Additionally, the boring logs indicate a high prevalence of clay soils throughout the site. In support of the current project’s septic system design, T.G. Miller, P.C. conducted percolation testing. The results also indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Furthermore, the USDA soil survey report for the project indicates that the underlying soil for a large percentage of the project has hydrologic soils group rating of “D” or “C/D”. The geotechnical report and septic percolation testing have been attached to the SWPPP. 15. Sediment Traps and Sediment Basins are both called out in the narrative and plan set. Please verify which is being proposed. Please provide associated calculations and details as required by the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Blue Book). TGM Response: All references to sediment traps have been removed. Sediment basin calculations and topography have been added to drawing C102. 16. Update the plan set to include a Concrete Washout Area and its associated construction detail. TGM Response: A concrete washout detail has been added to the drawings. 17. Please revise the plan set to include the following details: • Sediment Trap or Sediment Basin TGM Response: See response to comment #15. • Rock Check Dam TGM Response: A Rock Check Dam detail has been added. • Bioretention Filter Forebay and Weir. Please review this with the landscape plan relative to soils and vegetation requirements that differ between the forebay and the filter area. TGM Response: Bioretention filter and forebay to be coordinated with landscape plans. • Extended Detention Short Wetland TGM Response: An enlarged plan of the extended detention ‘shallow’ wetland has been added to the drawings. 18. Please add the following items to the plan set. • Include mound septic system on proposed drainage plan C105. TGM Response: The mound septic system has been added to C105. • Silt sock detail on Sheet C102 needs to be revised to match the Blue Book. TGM Response: The silt log detail on C102 has been revised. • Indicate material staging area on plan. Please note this area must be on a stabilized surface. TGM Response: The material staging area will be indicated on the plans. • Add winter stabilization procedures to the plan set. TGM Response: Winter stabilization notes will be added to the plans. • Indicate stream setbacks on all plan sheets. Please verify this setback was determined in accordance with the Code of the Town of Ithaca and accounts for any steep slopes that may be present. TGM Response: The stream setback has been added to all applicable plans where the viewport and scale allows. Yes, all shown stream setbacks shown are in accordance with Town of Ithaca standards. 19. Identify the length of the tracking pads. TGM Response: The length of the tracking pads has been added to drawing C102. 20. Provide erosion and sediment control plan for phasing. TGM Response: A phased erosion and sediment control plan will be added to the drawings. 21. Contour labels need to be added to the drainage plan in the stormwater practices where they are not provided on the grading plan. It would be beneficial for the contours in their entirety to be labeled on the drainage plan. TGM Response: Contour labels have been added to the extended detention shallow wetland. 22. There appears to be a difference between the drainage plan and grading plan. Please review and update accordingly. TGM Response: Drainage plan and grading plan will be coordinated. 23. The demo plan incorrectly identifies which pipe is being removed at the western pond. TGM Response: The demo plan has been revised accordingly. 24. Please review the existing catch basins and proposed grading plan. There are numerous basins around the proposed field that will need adjustments. Please review these basins and with other site improvements. There appears to be conflicts depicted in the plan set. TGM Response: Notes have been added to the drainage plan indicating rim elevation adjustments to all existing catch basins. All conflicts with site improvements have been resolved. 25. Please identify how the existing field drains (labeled tile outlet) will be handled. TGM Response: Existing field drains will be daylighted into the proposed swale. A note has been added to drawing C105. 26. Update landscaping plans to identify native planting are required as mentioned in the SWPPP narrative. TGM Response: The landscaping plans will be revised accordingly. 27. The modeling of existing conditions must align with the post-conditions outlined in the 2003 SWPPP. This includes accurately representing the field conditions as pervious in the pre-condition per the 2003 SWPPP and now impervious for the post condition based on DEC’s current guidance. The ponds shall be modeled according to their post conditions in 2003 and incorporating any missing stormwater structures into the model. TGM Response: Below is a table summarizing the post-development peak discharge rates for both the 2003 McGovern SWPPP and the current CU GFR SWPPP. For the purposes of a pre- versus post-development comparison, the rates from 2003 SWPPP shall be considered as the pre-developed condition per the above Town review comment. As can be seen, the post-development peak discharge is attenuated for the 1, 10, and 100-yr storm events by the proposed stormwater management approach. The SWPPP narrative will be revised to consider the 2003 SWPPP post development runoff rates as the pre- development rates for the current project. 28. Please provide additional information supporting your design that water will be conveyed to the attenuation device. Current modeling indicates that the structures are overtopping. TGM Response: Regarding diversion structure #1, runoff that may surcharge out of the structure will be captured by downstream drainage structures. If for any reason those structures become plugged and are not able to function, then all runoff will be conveyed to the attenuation device via the overlayed flow path between fields 3 & 4. Regarding diversion structure #2, the HydroCAD model has been revised so that runoff is no longer surcharging. 29. There are numerous discrepancies between the plan set and the HydroCad calculations. Please revise the materials accordingly. The calculations were not reviewed in detail due to the discrepancies. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised to address these discrepancies. 30. Please add the filters to the hydraulic modeling to verify how these systems are acting during the larger storm events (are they overtopping, do the overflow catch basins handle everything, etc.). TGM Response: Both bioretention filters have been added to the HydroCAD model. 31. Diversion Structure 2 appears to be overtopping into the bioretention filter. Provide calculations for the wetland as described in Chapter 6 section 1 and 2 of the Stormwater Management Design Manual. Note stormwater wetlands must also meet the requirements of Stormwater Ponds. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised and diversion structure #2 no longer surcharges. Calculations have been added to volume 1 of the SWPPP. Earth Day, April 22, 2025 Re: Cornell’s Synthetic Turf Project – Testing Concerns and Minimum Requirements Dear Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Members, Cornell has repeatedly stated that PFAS testing for the proposed synthetic turf field will be conducted by the manufacturer, and that “independent third-party testing” will occur “prior to the turf leaving the manufacturer.” This language has not changed, despite public objections, and continues to raise serious concerns. ➤ Manufacturer-conducted testing is not independent ➤ Testing coordinated and paid for by Cornell—conducted before the turf even leaves the factory—is not independent Independent testing matters because numerous studies have confirmed the presence of PFAS in synthetic turf materials. In fact, TenCate/GreenFields’ own technical manual for one of its widely sold turf products—Pivot—explicitly states that it contains PFAS. We have submitted the manual to the planning board. If Cornell is using or considering that product, the public has a right to know. The Zoning Board should recommend that the Planning Board require Cornell to disclose the full technical manual of the specific turf products under consideration. Further, a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request revealed that both the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Town’s own engineer expressed concern over the project’s stormwater plan, as seen in the DEC’s request for updated modeling and the engineer ’s comment that permit approval is ‘not guaranteed.. Please see attached pdf. This is highly relevant, as stormwater is a direct pathway through which PFAS and microplastics from synthetic turf enter the environment. These substances are persistent, bioaccumulative, and harmful to both ecological and human health. If the Zoning Board is considering any approval or variance related to this project, it must require that Cornell commit to publicly transparent, independently verified testing on representative samples. At minimum, this should include: 1. Total Fluorine Testing (TF) using a sensitive method such as Combustion Ion Chromatography (CIC) establishes whether fluorine is present, a key indicator of PFAS 2. EPA Method 1633 on the same sample, following cryo-milling to capture extractable PFAS embedded in the plastic 3. Leaching Analysis (EPA Method 1312, SPLP) on the same sample, followed by LC-MS/MS (1633) → Assesses exposure risk via runoff and groundwater 4. Additional cryo-milling testing for polymeric PFAS not included in EPA 1633, such as PTFE (Teflon) and PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride), which are commonly used in synthetic turf systems and are not detectable through conventional PFAS methods If PFAS is detected in any of these tests, it directly implicates Cornell’s noncompliance with New York State’s Carpet Collection Program Law (Article 27, Title 33 of the Environmental Conservation Law), which restricts carpet-like products containing intentionally added PFAS. Synthetic turf qualifies as a plastic-backed, carpet-like product used for flooring. Please note that the new carpet law defines “Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS substances” broadly as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom,” a definition that aligns with the OECD’s international standard (ACS source). Detection of PFAS—using any of the scientifically valid methods described above—would indicate that Cornell’s proposed turf is not compliant with New York State law and that their public representations regarding product safety have been misleading. This is precisely why public oversight is non-negotiable. The testing proposed by Cornell to date—carried out by or under the control of the manufacturer—is not credible, not transparent, and not compliant. We need independent, publicly accountable testing to prevent PFAS contamination and microplastic pollution. We request that the Town of Ithaca rescind the Negative Declaration issued on March 18, 2025, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.7(f), on the grounds that new information obtained via FOIL indicates substantial deficiencies in the environmental review—specifically, concerns raised by the NYS DEC and the Town’s engineer regarding flawed stormwater modeling and the possibility of permit denial. These concerns were not disclosed or addressed in the SEQR review, and the Negative Declaration cannot stand in light of this information. Respectfully submitted, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org OS J PRE-FAB BOX SIZE 24'-0" PR E - F A B B O X S I Z E 9' - 0 " 7 A1-20 PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) EWA-11S PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) OVERALL 24'-8" OV E R A L L 9' - 8 " PRESS BOX - LEVEL 2 188 SF. (INTERIOR) PRE-FAB BOX SIZE 24'-0" 7 A1-20 PR E - F A B B O X S I Z E 9' - 0 " PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) EWA-11S PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) OVERALL 24'-8" OV E R A L L 9' - 8 " PRESS BOX - LEVEL 1 188 SF. (INTERIOR) NEW PARTITION WINDOW OR LOUVER NEW DOOR EXTERIOR GLAZING ASSEMBLY (EGA) RECESSED ITEM FLOOR PLAN LEGEND NEW POCKET DOOR NEW DOUBLE DOOR NEW BEARING WALL RCP LEGEND SUSPENDED CEILING GRID SYSTEM EXIT SIGN - CEILING MOUTNED ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION GYPSUM BOARD CEILING CEILING TYPE KEY CEILING HEIGHT AFF CEILING TYPE STRIP FIXTURE DOWNLIGHT SPRINKLER OCCUPANCY SENSOR CEILING MOUNTED SPEAKER SMOKE DETECTOR SUPPLY DIFFUSER SUPPLY RETURN JUNCTION BOX CEILING MOUNTED WAP SECURITY CAMERA 8'-0" DS LEVEL 1 0'-0" 4' - 6 " 20 ' - 0 " 6" PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) 0742P EWA-11S 0742C2 PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) 24 ' - 6 " 7 A1-20 LEVEL 1 0'-0" 0742P PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) EWA-11S 0742C2 LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-11S PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) 0742P 7 A1-20 :TYP. AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C3 0742C2 LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-11S 0330C 0742C2 :STRUCUTRAL SLAB AND FOUNDATION WALLS. RE: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) PRE-FAB SCOPE (GRAY) 24'-0" 9' - 0 " USA-01 FROST WALL FOR STAIR SUPPORT. RE: STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. A1-20 10 A1-20 12 A1-20 11 13 A1-20 PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. +/ - 9 ' - 0 " +/- 30'-0" EWA-20S EWA-20S EWA-20S LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-20S 6" 0742C2 0742T PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. 0742CM 12" THICKENED SIDEWALK SLAB BELOW. RE: LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS +/ - 8 ' - 0 " LEVEL 1 0'-0" 13 A1-20 6" EWA-20S :TYP. AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNER CONDITIONS 0742C2 0742T PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. +/ - 8 ' - 0 " 0742C3 LEVEL 1 0'-0" 6" EWA-20S 0742C2 PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. +/ - 8 ' - 0 " LEVEL 1 0'-0" EWA-20S 6" 0742CM 0742C2 0742T PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. +/ - 8 ' - 0 " 13 A1-20 PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE ABOVE. REF: LANDSCAPE SPEC. 0742CM 2'-0" TYP. WITH ATTACHMENT GIRTS BEYOND Stamp Project Directory: Drawing No. Drawing Title: Key Plan Project Title: Scale:Project No: Drawn By: Checked By: Approved By: Date: ARCHITECT + LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SASAKI BOSTON, MA 02111 110 CHAUNCY STREET TEL. 617. 926. 3300 WWW.SASAKI.COM CIVIL TG MILLER 605 WEST STATE STREET ITHICA, NT 14850 TEL. 607. 272. 6477 WWW.TGMILLERPC.COM STRUCTURAL LEMESSURIER 1380 SOLDIER FIELD RD BOSTON, MA 02135 TEL. 617. 868. 1200 WWW.LEMESSURIER.COM MEP/FP RFS ENGINEERING 71 WATER STREET LACONIA, NH 03246 TEL. 603. 524. 4647 WWW.RFSENGINEERING.COM BUILDING AND FIRE CODE HOWE ENGINEERS 141 LONGWATER DRIVE NORWELL, MA 02061 TEL. 781. 878. 3500 WWW.HOWEENGINEERS.COM FIELD HOCKEY IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CONSULTING,INC. 30 MERRITT PARKWAY NASHUA, NH 03062 TEL. 978. 433. 8972 WWW.IRRIGATIONCONSULTING.COM 9/27/2024 3:21:56 PM As indicated NEW FEILD HOCKEY FIELD Game Farm Road | Ithica, NY 14853 Cornell University CONSTRUCTION PLAN - PRESS BOX AND TEAM SHEALTERS A1-20 09.27.24 RT LR 38145.00 FC 09/27/2024 ISSUED FOR PERMIT DWG ISSUE & REVISION HISTORY No. Description Date 1/4" = 1'-0"2 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - PRESS BOX 1/4" = 1'-0"1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - PRESS BOX (LEVEL 1) PREFABRICATED PRESS BOX SCOPE BREAKDOWN: PREFABRICATED PRESS BOX INCLUDES: 1. PRESS BOX STRUCTURE AND FRAMING 2. EXTERIOR SHEATHING WHEATHER BARRIER 3. EXTERIOR WINDOWS, DOORS AND HARDWARE 4. ROOF, FILMING PLATFORM, GUARDRAIL AND ROOF HATCH 5. EXTERIOR STAIRCASE AND RAILING 6. ALL INTERIOR LIGHTING, MILLWORK 7. INTERIOR WALL PANELS PROVIDED, BUT NOT INSTALLED TO ALLOW FOR A.H.J. INSPECTIONS 8. PRE-WIRING FOR ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS GENERAL CONTRACTOR PROVIDES: 1. FOUNDATION WALLS AND STRUCTURAL SLAB 2. EXTERIOR CLADDING, INSULATION, ATTACHMENT GIRTS AND TRIM 3. TIE-IN TO PRE-WIRED ELECTRICAL PANEL AND SUB-PANEL 4. SPORTS LIGTING PANEL INSTALL 5. INSTALLATION OF DRY SPRINKLER SYSTEM 6. CONNECTION OF ALL AV/IT SCOPE, BETWEEN PRESS BOX CONNECTIONS POINTS AND AV/IT DEVICES. 7. INSTALL INTETIOR WALL PANELS AFTER A.H.J. INSPECTIONS KEYNOTE LIST 0330C CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 0742C2 METAL WALL PANELS: TYPE 2 0742C3 METAL WALL PANELS: FACTORY BENT OUTSIDE CORNER 0742CM COMPOSITE METAL PANEL SYSTEM 0742P METAL WALL PANELS: 1/8" ALUMINUM PLATE 0742T METAL WALL PANEL TRIM 1/4" = 1'-0"5 ELEVATION - PRESS BOX - EAST 1/4" = 1'-0"6 ELEVATION - PRESS BOX - NORTH/SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"4 ELEVATION - PRESS BOX - WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"7 SECTION - PRESS BOX 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SLAB PLAN - PRESS BOX 1/4" = 1'-0"9 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - TEAM SHELTER (A AND B) 1/4" = 1'-0"13 SECTION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER 1/4" = 1'-0"10 ELEVATION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER - WEST 1/4" = 1'-0"12 ELEVATION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER - NORTH/SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0"11 ELEVATION - TYP. TEAM SHELTER - EAST PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER SCOPE BREAKDOWN: PREFABRICATED TEAM SHELTER INCLUDES: 1. TEAM SHELTER STRUCTURE AND ROOF CLADDING 2. ALUMINUM BENCH GENERAL CONTRACTOR PROVIDES: 1. 12" THICKENED SLAB BELOW TEAM SHELTER FOR ANCHORAGE 2. EXTERIOR CLADDING, ATTACHMENT GIRTS AND TRIM 3. WIRING AND MOUNTED OF EXTERIOR ELECTRCIAL OUTLETS 1/4" = 1'-0"8 RCP - TEAM SHELTER (A AND B) DEPARTMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1783 codes@townithacany.gov Re: Code Dpt. Review of DEV-24-10 Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey development TP# 62.-2-5 From: Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement Department Dear Planning Department, Please see the below comments and questions pertaining to application DEV-24-10: 1. According to the stream setback map of the Town of Ithaca, this parcel appears to be impacted by a 100’ stream setback that needs to be identified on the plans submitted. The “bank full run” need to be established and then the stream setback needs to be delineated to determine what impact this project will have on the stream setback. 2. Ther is an existing barn that is on site that needs to be identified with the size, in addition to the phase 1 and phase 2 buildings. 3. Sheet G1-00 seems to indicate that the setback from game farm road is 50’. The front yard setback does not appear to be measured from the highway right- of -way. Please provide documentation to identify the setback distance from the road right- of -way. 4. Sheet C104 appears to have a hydrant shown next to the fire apparatus access road and the hydrant appears to be withing 400’ of all areas of the buildings being proposed, please confirm that this statement is correct. a. Please provide the measurements for all portions of the building to be within 150’ of the fire apparatus access road, per section 503.1.1 of the NYS Fire Code (2020). b. Please show the existing fire hydrants that serve the soccer facility building. c. Due to the hydrant being next to the fire apparatus access road, physical protection needs to be provided for the hydrant in accordance with section 507.5.6 of the NYS Fire Code (2020). d. The sidewalk does not seem to integrate mountable curbs for the fire apparatus access road to be drivable or accessible for emergency vehicles, please indicate where the mountable curbing will be located and identify the profile of the mountable curb. 5. The handicap accessible route seems to be utilizing the fire apparatus access road, would this be a correct statement? Will the fire apparatus access road, leading to the field, have gates or barricades (if so, please provide information on what is proposed and where it is proposed)? 6. Sheet L1-02 identifies the fire access plans. Please show the radius of the entry roadway connection to Game Farm Road. This will be further reviewed in the near future. 7. Please provide fire flow calculations, with what calculation method has been utilized. 8. Variances that need to be provided, as identified currently, are as follows: a. An area variance for the sign area would be necessary due exceeding the total sign area (270-254E.(6)(a)), as the current total sign area appears to be 469.94’ , where the total (25’x17.25’ score board, team building 3.667’x4.667’ and 3.41’x 1.31’, and Axon team building 3.667’x4.667’) sign area is only allowed to be 32 sq.ft.. If the sign area is not correctly identified above, please submit the calculations for all signs on the property. b. An area variance due to section 270-59 of Town code that requires a structure height not to exceed 30’, where the proposed external light poles are approximately 70’ in height and the proposed camera pole is 35’. c. Sprinkler variance: Sheet A1-20 identifies a floor layout of the press box. Sprinklers do not appear to be proposed as part of the press box. Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca code requires sprinklers to be provided in the occupied areas of the building, including the roof. d. An area variance for the fence height. Per section 270-223, of the Town Code, fencing is allowed to be a maximum height of 6’, where the fence is proposed to be 30’ for the netting located on the north and south sides of the field (pg. 13). e. Exterior lighting variance due to the luminaire not being fully shielded in a accordance with section 173-9 of the Town Code. 9. Pg. 13 of the application report indicates that the lighting for the field will have a “sharp cutoff” and not a “fully shielded” luminaire. A “fully shielded” luminaire is required, per section 173-9 of the Town Code, as defined below a. “FULLY SHIELDED LUMINAIRE: A luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by it, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, is projected below a horizontal plane through the luminaire's lowest light-emitting part.” b. If the sports lighting is not “fully shielded”, then a variance will be required to be obtained in accordance with section 173-18 of Town Code. c. Please identify the angle (in degrees) in which the sports field lighting will be directed towards the playing field. 10. Pg 14 of the application report indicates that the buildings will be in compliance with the Ithaca energy Code. Please submit the checklist 11. The site lighting photometric report, located in the application report, shows the proposed lighting of the parking area, but I not legible. The legible photo metric plan appears to be in the site plans. The site plan for the sports field lighting and the parking lot/pedestrian lighting appears to have some overlap but since the phonotactics are on two separate sheets, the lighting intensity is unclear where there is overlap. 12. The application report indicates that there will be amplified noise, which will require a noise permit waiver to be issued by the Town Board, in accordance with article III of chapter 184 of the Town of Ithaca Code. Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Zoning Variance Application Materials Cornell University Ithaca, NY March 10, 2025 This page intentionally left blank. March 10, 2025 Zoning Board Members, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Variances for the Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Dear Town of Ithaca Zoning Board Members: Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics. Construction of the project is proposed in two phases. Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes with a much-needed, NCAA compliant synthetic turf field. The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields. Phase one will include a field hockey pitch, a new driveway, formalized parking, pedestrian amenities, and small support facilities. The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. This project requires area variances for a scoreboard and other site signage, height variances for the athletic fence netting and field lighting, and a sprinkler variance for the press box roof. We ask for consideration of the zoning variances described herein at your April 22, 2025 meeting. Enclosed please find project narrative, zoning board of appeals applications, and graphics for the project. The application fee will be provided separately. Sincerely, Kimberly Van Leeuwen Director of Landscape Architecture 1001 W Seneca Street Suite 201 Ithaca, New York 14850 • 607.277.1400 • fisherassoc.com Cultivating our gifts to create a legacy of infrastructure that improves quality of life. add KVL signature This page intentionally left blank. PROJECT CONSULTANTS Project Architect and Landscape Architect Project Municipal Approvals Project Civil Engineer Project Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing Engineers This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Overview Zoning Variances Criteria Zoning Variance Graphics Project Renderings Town Code Department Review Letter This page intentionally left blank. PROJECT OVERVIEW Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics. Construction of the project is proposed in two phases. Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes a much-needed, NCAA-required synthetic turf field. The field is proposed on the site of an existing lightly utilized grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields. Phase one will include a field hockey pitch, a new driveway, formalized parking, pedestrian amenities, and small support facilities. The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. An additional building (phase two) for field hockey is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation. The building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team. The clubhouse will include team locker rooms, offices, meeting rooms, a physical therapy/training room, a lounge, toilets, showers, and an indoor training space. The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The full buildout with Phase II building is visible on the title page. The proposed septic system, stormwater management system, and electrical transformer included in the phase one construction will be sized to accommodate both phase one and phase two development. Project Purpose, Need, and Benefit The proposed facilities will provide a new home for Cornell field hockey, primarily varsity athletes, while also serving club and camp needs. Location The project site totals approximately 15.65 acres and is within three tax parcels in the Town of Ithaca (numbers 62.-2-6, 62.-2-5, and 62.-2-4). The limit of disturbance within the site is approximately 12.22 acres. The total acreage of the three parcels in which the project site sits is approximately 123 acres. These parcels are adjacent additional Game Farm Road and East Hill Plaza Cornell lands that comprise approximately 506 acres, per the County Assessment tax mapping. Figure: Project Location ZONING VARIANCES CRITERIA Low Density Residential (LDR) The proposed field will be located within the Town of Ithaca Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District, primarily on parcel 62.-2-6 with some additional work in parcels 62.-2-5 and 62.-2-4. The project is an allowed use with a special use permit in the LDR zone as part of an institution of higher learning. Both the phase one and phase two buildings will meet building height, yard setback, and lot coverage requirements. At the end of this package, graphics of each element listed below are provided, along with a site plan showing the locations of each element. In Residential and Conservation Zones, Town code dictates that: •Signs may not be internally illuminated. In other Zones, Town code dictates that internally illuminated signs shall be turned off between the hours of 9:00pm and 5:00am. •Freestanding signs shall not exceed six feet in height, and no one sign should be larger than six square feet in area. •Signs up to 16 square feet in area in the aggregate on any one parcel are permitted. •Flags should not exceed 40 square feet in area. Team Building A red aluminum sign in the shape of the letter “C” for the team building is proposed to be approximately 4.75 feet tall and 3.75 feet wide, totaling around 17.5 square feet. This sign requires a variance for exceeding six square feet in area. Press Box Two types of signs are proposed for the press box. One is an aluminum panel sign painted red with raised white lettering and is proposed to be 18 inches tall and ten feet wide, totaling 15 square feet in area. The other sign is comprised of metal letters that are one foot high and will span approximately 13.75 feet. These signs require variances for being larger than six square feet in area. Scoreboard The project includes a scoreboard with internally illuminated digits. The scoreboard will be turned off between the hours of 9:00pm and 5:00am. The freestanding scoreboard will be 11.5 feet tall and 20 feet wide, totaling 230 square feet in area. The bottom of the scoreboard panel will be ten feet off the ground. For these reasons, the scoreboard requires an area variance. Field Timers The project also includes two field timers that are internally illuminated. The timers will be turned off between the hours of 9:00pm and 5:00am. Each field timer is 3.75 feet tall and 3.5 feet wide, totaling just over 13 square feet in area. The bottom of the field timer panels will be ten feet off the ground. For these reasons, the field timers require an area variance. Windscreens Two windscreens are proposed for wrapping the chain link fence on the north and south sides of the field, with four-foot red lettering facing into the field. The backs of the windscreen will be black. Each windscreen will be 100 feet long and six feet high, totaling 600 square feet in area. Due to their total area, the windscreens require an area variance. Team Dugouts Each team dugout is proposed to have a red aluminum panel sign with raised white lettering that will be six inches tall and just over 10.5 feet wide, totaling just over five feet in area. On their own, these signs do not require variances, but they contribute to the total sign area. Flag One eight feet by 12 feet flag is proposed next to the scoreboard, totaling 96 square feet, therefore requiring a variance. Aggregate Area The aggregate area of signs is 1,608.25 square feet, exceeding 16 square feet and therefore requiring a variance. Area Variance – Fence/Netting Height In Residential and Conservation Zones, Town code dictates that fencing should generally not exceed six feet in height. The project includes 24-foot-high field netting located at the north and south ends of the proposed field hockey field, behind the goals (approximately 64 feet in length, total). This netting is necessary for safety reasons. The netting requires a variance for exceeding six feet in height. Area Variance – Flag Pole and Light Poles Section 270-59 of Town code requires that a structure height should not exceed 30 feet. A freestanding 40-feet-tall flagpole is proposed and will require a variance. There are four sports light poles that are 70 feet in height, thus requiring a variance. The site light poles are under 30 feet and do not require a variance. Area Variance Criteria Form 1.Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties? No. The proposed field hockey field is surrounded by Cornell land and other athletic facilities. The signs, netting, and lighting are similar in size, height, and materiality to others in the vicinity. 2.Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance? No. The scoreboard and field timer must be internally lit and are sized to be visible to players and spectators. All signs are sized appropriately to their respective locations and purposes. The 24-foot-high netting is required for safety reasons. The height of the lighting poles is necessary for proper illumination of the field and site. The height of the flag pole is necessary for the flag to fly above the scoreboard unobstructed. 3.Is the requested variance substantial? No. The signs, netting, and poles are typical in size and height for athletic facilities. 4.Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No. The project is located among other athletic facilities and surrounded on three sides by other campus lands. The proposed physical and environmental conditions (athletic field and small buildings) are similar to the existing conditions and should not have a dramatic impact on the neighborhood. 5.Is the alleged difficulty self-created? No. As previously recognized by the Town, regarding other projects, the Low-Density Residential zoning does not align with university land use. The town’s zoning code does not include an institutional or university zone. Sprinkler Variance – Press Box The proposed project includes a press box building. NYS Building Code does not require a sprinkler system to be installed in the proposed press box building. The Town of Ithaca has more restrictive sprinkler system requirements and requires that the press box building be provided with a sprinkler system in compliance with NFPA standards. NFPA 13 is the standard that regulates sprinkler systems in nonresidential buildings. A press box building is classified as an office building and, therefore, requires a sprinkler system per Town of Ithaca Code § 225-3. The proposed press box is a small two-story building with a flat roof. The occupied area of the first floor is 190 square feet, second floor is 190 square feet, and the roof area is 240 square feet. The first and second floors are enclosed with windows facing the field that will be used for press. The first and second floors will be sprinklered. The roof is open to the sky and will be occasionally used as a camera platform. The roof will be used only as a camera platform, there will be no other use of the roof. Cameras will only be on the roof when they are being used- neither the cameras, nor anything else, will be stored on the roof. The Town’s Code Enforcement official interprets the code to require sprinklers on all floors, including the open-air roof. We ask for a variance to not include sprinklers on the open-air roof. 1.Will the strict application of the Sprinkler Chapter of the Town Code create a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship? Yes. Cornell University will provide sprinkler coverage in the enclosed first floor and second floor of the press box building and a fire extinguisher for the roof; however, providing sprinkler coverage for the roof presents a problem. No manufacturer lists a sprinkler head for use on an open roof. There are no sprinkler heads listed by a required testing agency for use on a level that is open to the sky. All sprinkler heads are listed for installation at a specific distance below a ceiling. NFPA 13 also has requirements for sprinkler head installation at a specific distance below a ceiling. Unless Cornell builds a roof over the roof, there is no code compliant way to sprinkler the open roof area. Furthermore, NFPA 13 does not require open roof areas to be provided with sprinkler coverage. The NYS Code does not require office buildings to be provided with a sprinkler system. NYS Code does require certain Group A – Assembly occupancies to be provided with sprinkler coverage. Even if a Group A – Assembly occupancy that requires sprinkler coverage is located on a roof, NYS Code does not require that roof be provided with sprinkler coverage. In those cases, NYS Code requires all floors below the roof to be provided with sprinkler coverage. All floors below the roof of the press box will be provided with sprinkler coverage. 2.Will the omission of an approved sprinkler system from all or part of the building significantly jeopardize human life? No. The roof will be used only as a camera platform. The cameras will only be on the roof when they are being used, the cameras will not be stored on the roof. The cameras will be used approximately 15 times per year and the roof will be occupied by a maximum number of two people who are camera operators. In addition, a fire extinguisher will be provided and there is an exterior staircases for people to get off the roof quickly in case of an emergency. The furthest point on the roof from the exterior staircase is 21 feet. It will take fewer than 10 seconds to evacuate the roof from the furthest point. Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Zoning Variance Graphics Team Building - East Elevation Scale: Not To Scale Press Box - East Elevation Scale: Not To Scale 4' - 9 " 3' - 0 " 3'-8" 1' - 0 " 2'-4" 13 ' - 8 " 3' - 6 " 10 ' 1' 19 ' 18 " 8' Red Aluminum Panel with Raised White Lettering Red Aluminum Sign Building Alternate 10' 13'-7" CORNELL FIELD HOCKEY [NAME/FAMILY] PRESS BOX Building Alternate 4' - 9 " 3' - 0 " 3'-8" 1' - 0 " 2'-4" 13 ' - 8 " 11 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 20'-0" 7' - 6 " Scoreboard Field Timer (2 Locations) 10 ' - 0 " 3' - 9 " 3'-6" Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 18 " 18 " Internally Illuminated LED Digits Internally Illuminated LED Digits 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 1' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 0 " 1'-0" 1'-3" CORNELL FIELD HOCKEY DONOR NAME HERE Windscreen (2 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale Printed Heavy Duty Vinyl Team Dugout (2 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale 8' - 9 " 8' - 2 " Red Aluminum Panel with Raised White Lettering 6" 10'-7 1/2" 6'4' 100' [NAME/FAMILY] DUGOUT CORNELL FIELD HOCKEY GO BIG RED - East Elevation Field Netting (2 Locations) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 24 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 13 ' - 9 " 24'-0" Field Timer Behind Netting Net Post Chain Link Fence 6" Field Netting Windscreen Flag Pole 6' - 0 " 40 ' - 0 " 21 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 1 / 4 " Chain Link Fence Flag Pole Scoreboard Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Windscreen Sports Lights (4 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale 70 ' 70 ' 70 ' Sports Lights F1, F2 Sports Light F3 Sports Light F4 Site Lights (18 Locations) Scale: Not To Scale Site Light Single Head Site Light Double Head 20 ' 20 ' Press Box - Sprinkler Variance Scale: Not To Scale West Elevation Roof Plan 19 ' 9' - 8 " 24'-8" 7' - 6 " Path of Egress Path of Egress Guardrail 3' - 6 " Roof Entrance (Gate) Roof Entrance (Gate)Press Box Roof This page intentionally left blank. This page intentionally left blank. FEAF 2019 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. 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; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part 1is accurate and complete. A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name of Action or Project: Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map): Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO: State: Zip Code: Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO:State: Zip Code: Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone: E-Mail: Address: City/PO:State: Zip Code: Page 1 of 13 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals, Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Required Application Date (Actual or projected) a.City Council, Town Board, 9 Yes 9 No or Village Board of Trustees b. City, Town or Village 9 Yes 9 No Planning Board or Commission c.City, Town or 9 Yes 9 No Village Zoning Board of Appeals d. Other local agencies 9 Yes 9 No e. County agencies 9 Yes 9 No f. Regional agencies 9 Yes 9 No g. State agencies 9 Yes 9 No h. Federal agencies 9 Yes 9 No i. Coastal Resources. i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?9 Yes 9 No ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program?9 Yes 9 No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?9 Yes 9 No C.Planning and Zoning C.1. Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the 9 Yes 9 No only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? •If Yes, complete sections C, F and G. •If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2. Adopted land use plans. a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site 9 Yes 9 No where the proposed action would be located? If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action 9 Yes 9 No would be located? b.Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway;9 Yes 9 No Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan; or other?) If Yes, identify the plan(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, 9 Yes 9 No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes, identify the plan(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 13 (Future Land Use designation is "campus") C.3. Zoning a.Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance.9 Yes 9 No If Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?9 Yes 9 No c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________ C.4. Existing community services. a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________ b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ d.What parks serve the project site? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D.Project Details D.1. Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include all components)? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b.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 c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?9 Yes 9 No i.If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units, square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________ d.Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i.Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?9 Yes 9 No iii.Number of lots proposed? ________ iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________ e.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?9 Yes 9 No i.If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months ii.If Yes: •Total number of phases anticipated _____ •Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year •Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year •Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 13 f. Does the project include new residential uses?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, show numbers of units proposed. One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more) Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ At completion of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?9 Yes 9 No If Yes, i. Total number of structures ___________ ii.Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length iii.Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any 9 Yes 9 No liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage? If Yes, i.Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________ ii.If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: 9 Ground water 9 Surface water streams 9 Other specify: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres v.Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D.2. Project Operations a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? 9 Yes 9 No (Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________ ii.How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site? •Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________ •Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________ iii.Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acres vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet viii.Will the excavation require blasting?9 Yes 9 No ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment 9 Yes 9 No into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic description): ______________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 13 ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, or alteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes 9 No If Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ___________________________________________________________ •expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:________________________________________ •purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________ •if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________ v.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ c.Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/day ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________ •Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?9 Yes 9 No •Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No •Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No •Do existing lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________ iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No If, Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________ •Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________ •Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________ v.If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.If water supply will be from wells (public or private), what is the maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute. d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/day ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): __________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________ •Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________ •Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No •Is the project site in the existing district?9 Yes 9 No •Is expansion of the district needed?9 Yes 9 No Page 5 of 13 •Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No •Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________ •Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________ •What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________ v.If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point 9 Yes 9 No sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction? If Yes: i.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel? _____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface) _____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size) ii.Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties, groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ •If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?9 Yes 9 No iv.Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? 9 Yes 9 No f.Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel 9 Yes 9 No combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations? If Yes, identify: i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit,9 Yes 9 No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet 9 Yes 9 No ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year) ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate: •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Nitrous Oxide (N2O) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) •___________Tons/year (short tons) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants,9 Yes 9 No landfills, composting facilities)? If Yes: i.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________ ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat or electricity, flaring): ________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as 9 Yes 9 No quarry or landfill operations? If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial 9 Yes 9 No new demand for transportation facilities or services? If Yes: i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): † Morning † Evening †Weekend † Randomly between hours of __________ to ________. ii.For commercial activities only, projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g., semi trailers and dump trucks): _____________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Parking spaces: Existing ___________________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________________ iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?Yes No v.If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vi.Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site?9 Yes 9 No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric 9 Yes 9 No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing 9 Yes 9 No pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand 9 Yes 9 No for energy? If Yes: i.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or other): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade, to an existing substation?9 Yes 9 No l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply. i.During Construction:ii.During Operations: •Monday - Friday: _________________________•Monday - Friday: ____________________________ •Saturday: ________________________________•Saturday: ___________________________________ •Sunday: _________________________________•Sunday: ____________________________________ •Holidays: ________________________________•Holidays: ___________________________________ Page 7 of 13 N/A m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,9 Yes 9 No operation, or both? If yes: i.Provide details including sources, time of day and duration: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?9 Yes 9 No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ n.Will the proposed action have outd oor lighting?9 Yes 9 No If yes: i.Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? 9 Yes 9 No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ o.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ p. Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)9 Yes 9 No or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i.Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year) iii.Generally, describe the proposed storage facilities:________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides,9 Yes 9 No insecticides) during construction or operation? If Yes: i.Describe proposed treatment(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?9 Yes 9 No r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal 9 Yes 9 No of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)? If Yes: i.Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility: •Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) •Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: •Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: •Construction: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ •Operation: __________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 13 N/A s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility?9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i.Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, or other disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: •________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or •________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment iii.If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous 9 Yes 9 No waste? If Yes: i.Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ___________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site a. Existing land uses. i.Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site. 9 Urban 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Rural (non-farm) 9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): ____________________________________ ii.If mix of uses, generally describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Covertype Current Acreage Acreage After Project Completion Change (Acres +/-) •Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervious surfaces •Forested •Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non- agricultural, including abandoned agricultural) •Agricultural (includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.) •Surface water features (lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.) •Wetlands (freshwater or tidal) •Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill) •Other Describe: _______________________________ ________________________________________ Page 9 of 13 c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? 9 Yes 9 No i. If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________ d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed 9 Yes 9 No day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site? If Yes, i. Identify Facilities: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: • Dam height: _________________________________ feet • Dam length: _________________________________ feet • Surface area: _________________________________ acres • Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet ii. Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________ iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, 9 Yes 9 No or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: i. Has the facility been formally closed? 9 Yes 9 No • If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________ ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: __________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin 9 Yes 9 No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any 9 Yes 9 No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site 9 Yes 9 No Remediation database? Check all that apply: 9 Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ 9 Neither database ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________ iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 13 v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? 9 Yes 9 No • If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________ • Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________ • Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________ • Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________ • Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? 9 Yes 9 No • Explain: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________% c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________% ___________________________ __________% ____________________________ __________% d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet e. Drainage status of project site soils: 9 Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site 9 Poorly Drained _____% of site f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 9 0-10%: _____% of site 9 10-15%: _____% of site 9 15% or greater: _____% of site g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ h. Surface water features. i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, 9 Yes 9 No ponds or lakes)? ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, 9 Yes 9 No state or local agency? iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information: • Streams: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________• Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________• Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________ • Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________ v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired 9 Yes 9 No waterbodies? If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? 9 Yes 9 No j. Is the project site in the 100-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No k. Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain? 9 Yes 9 No l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 13 m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________ iii. Extent of community/habitat: • Currently: ______________________ acres • Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acres • Gain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as 9 Yes 9 No endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i. Species and listing (endangered or threatened):______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of 9 Yes 9 No special concern? If Yes: i. Species and listing:____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? 9 Yes 9 No If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to 9 Yes 9 No Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________ b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? 9 Yes 9 No i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________ ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________ c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National 9 Yes 9 No Natural Landmark? If Yes: i. Nature of the natural landmark: 9 Biological Community 9 Geological Feature ii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 13 e. Does the project site contain, or is it substantially contiguous to, a building, archaeological site, or district 9 Yes 9 No which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? If Yes: i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: 9 Archaeological Site 9 Historic Building or District ii. Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ f. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for 9 Yes 9 No archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory? g. Have additional archaeological or historic site(s) or resources been identified on the project site? 9 Yes 9 No If Yes: i. Describe possible resource(s): _______________________________________________________________________________ ii. Basis for identification: ___________________________________________________________________________________ h. Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal, state, or local 9 Yes 9 No scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i. Identify resource: _________________________________________________________________________________________ ii. Nature of, or basis for, designation (e.g., established highway overlook, state or local park, state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.): ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ iii. Distance between project and resource: _____________________ miles. i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers 9 Yes 9 No Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: i. Identify the name of the river and its designation: ________________________________________________________________ ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? 9 Yes 9 No F. Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal, please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G. Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name ___________________________________ Date_______________________________________ Signature________________________________________________ Title_______________________________________ Page 13 of 13 Outlook Turf concerns From Wendy Susan Wolfe <ww16@cornell.edu> Date Mon 3/24/2025 12:40 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> **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 do not allow Cornell’s synthetic turf to go forward, for the reasons stated below.  Wendy Wolfe, Town of Ithaca  1. Signage Placement in Off-Limits Areas "I oppose Cornell's request to place signs within the public right-of-way. According to the Town of Ithaca's zoning regulations, such encroachments are prohibited to preserve public spaces and prevent visual clutter. Allowing these signs would set a concerning precedent, leading to potential billboard-like intrusions that degrade our community's aesthetic. Ithaca's zoning laws are designed to protect our scenic environment, much like Vermont's successful prohibition of roadside billboards. I urge the board to uphold these standards and deny the variance." 2. Synthetic Turf as an Impervious Surface "I am concerned about Cornell's synthetic turf project, which effectively creates an impervious surface. The Town of Ithaca's zoning ordinance emphasizes minimizing increases in impervious surfaces to manage stormwater runoff and prevent flooding. Synthetic turf prevents natural water infiltration, leading to increased runoff and potential environmental issues. I request that the zoning board consider these implications carefully and require comprehensive stormwater management plans before approval." 3. Public Health Implications of Synthetic Turf "I wish to highlight the public health concerns associated with synthetic turf fields. Studies have shown that these surfaces can reach extreme temperatures, posing heat-related health risks. Additionally, there is potential for chemical leaching into our water systems. The Town of Ithaca's zoning laws are established to protect public health and safety. I urge the board to thoroughly assess these health risks and ensure that any development complies with our community's health standards." 4. Environmental Impact of Synthetic Turf "I am concerned about the environmental impact of Cornell's proposed synthetic turf field. The Town of Ithaca's zoning ordinance requires consideration of environmentally sensitive areas and mandates that developments minimize adverse environmental effects. Synthetic turf can contribute to microplastic pollution and negatively affect local ecosystems. I urge the zoning board to require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment before granting approval." 5. Lighting and Wildlife Disruption "I oppose Cornell's request for reflective signage materials, as they may lead to increased light pollution. The Town of Ithaca's zoning regulations aim to protect the community's welfare, which includes minimizing light pollution that can disrupt local wildlife, particularly nocturnal species. I request that the board consider these ecological impacts and deny the variance for reflective materials." Outlook Fwd: Request for Recall of Negative Declaration – Flawed PFAS Testing & New Evidence From Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:45 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> 1 attachment (6 MB) CTI.23-097B_Testing-Report_Pivot_1.5-12-year-warranty.pdf; Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I’m forwarding the letter below, which I previously sent to the Town Planning Board, as it contains critical unresolved concerns related to Cornell’s synthetic turf project on Game F arm Road. These include flawed PFAS testing protocols, lack of transparency, and new scientific evidence that was not meaningfully addressed prior to the board’s decision to issue a Negative Declaration. Since the Zoning Board is now being asked to consider variances tied to this project, I believe it’s essential that these materials be entered into the record and carefully reviewed as part of your deliberation. I will be forwarding a few additional items as well, to ensure that all relevant concerns are available for your consideration. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or if you would like further documentation. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:00 AM Subject: Request for Recall of Negative Declaration – Flawed PFAS Testing & New Evidence To: <planning@townithacany.gov> Cc: <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> Dear Town Planning Board Members, We are deeply disappointed by your unanimous decision to issue a Negative Declaration for the Game Farm Road synthetic turf project, despite a significant number of residents voicing their opposition and extensive evidence of environmental harm submitted by the public prior to the meeting. We formally request a recall of this determination before the finalization of the paperwork and submit the following additional information for your record. Cornell’s Misleading “Independent” Testing Cornell claims that, in addition to the manufacturer’s guarantee, it will conduct an “independent, third- party” test of the turf "prior to leaving the manufacturer (pre-shipment)" (January 31, 2025, Supplemental Materials Submission, p. 10). Far from inspiring confidence, this arrangement is fundamentally flawed. Testing conducted at the manufacturer’s own facility is inherently compromised, allowing the manufacturer to control the process, sample selection, and potentially even the lab conducting the analysis. This is not independent oversight—it is a pre-approved PR maneuver disguised as science. True independent testing must be conducted off-site, without manufacturer involvement, using EPA- standardized methods (meeting or exceeding EPA Method 1633, available since 2021), with full public disclosure of all relevant details immediately upon completion. Anything less is a mockery of legitimate environmental review. Multiple members of the public raised these concerns in their comments, yet the board chose to ignore them and proceeded with the Negative Declaration. New Evidence: TenCate’s Own Test Results Confirm PFAS in Synthetic Turf Test results from TenCate’s own manual confirm PFAS in their synthetic turf, directly contradicting claims that it is “PFAS-Free” (see attached report). Failure of Transparency in Cornell’s PFAS Testing Multiple members of the public have raised concerns about the lack of transparency in Cornell’s so- called “third-party” PFAS testing, yet the board has failed to require independent, standardized testing or provide clarity on: The specific testing methods used The detection thresholds applied The laboratory name and credentials Whether independent review was conducted When and how the public can access full test results Testing should always be conducted by independent third-party laboratories using appropriate testing techniques and parameters. Signed affidavits claiming “PFAS-Free” are never acceptable. Cornell’s claim that: “...the turf manufacturer attests that no polyfluoroalkyl substances (or PFAS) chemicals will be used in the synthetic material.” This statement is meaningless without independent verification, yet Cornell and the board are treating it as proof. It is not science—it is an unverified marketing claim. Tactics Used to Generate False “PFAS-Free” Claims We have observed a variety of misleading testing techniques used to create false claims of “PFAS-Free” status: Inappropriate test methods (e.g., soil or water testing instead of correct solid/plastic testing methods). Use of deionized water or methanol as a solvent, which does not properly extract PFAS from plastics. Setting Reporting Limits (RLs) too high, making it impossible to detect PFAS at relevant levels (e.g., 590 ppt for PFBA and 290 ppt for other PFAS). Failure to perform the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), which simulates real- world PFAS leaching over time. Omission of “J” values, which estimate PFAS concentrations below the Reporting Limit but above the Method Detection Limit. Despite these significant scientific concerns, the board has rubber-stamped not only the manufacturer’s self-reported test—conducted without regulatory oversight—but also Cornell’s so- called “independent, third-party” test, which will take place before the turf even leaves the manufacturer’s site. This failure to apply due diligence undermines public trust and disregards scientific best practices for PFAS detection. Additional Scientific Findings on Artificial Tur f Toxicity We urge the board to carefully review the following peer-reviewed study: Siegel, Kyle R., Brooklynn R. Murray, Jeff Gearhart, and Christopher D. Kassotis. "In Vitro Endocrine and Cardiometabolic Toxicity Associated with Artificial Turf Materials." Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, September 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104562 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668924002023 This study examined both new and weathered artificial turf samples and found: Stronger endocrine-disrupting effects in weathered samples, affecting androgen, estrogen, and thyroid receptors. Activation of the AhR receptor, which is linked to toxin processing and carcinogenicity. Toxic effects on heart cells in rats, raising serious concerns about potential cardiometabolic harm in humans. These findings reinforce the urgent need for rigorous environmental and health assessments before allowing synthetic turf installation. Demands & Next Steps The board must immediately reopen SEQRA review and require proper PFAS testing before finalizing the Negative Declaration. Failure to do so will confirm that this decision was made without legitimate environmental review. Ignoring this critical issue will: Jeopardize public health and environmental safety. Demonstrate outright disregard for meaningful public input. Expose the board’s unwillingness to enforce legitimate environmental oversight. This letter and supporting evidence must be logged as part of the official record. Supporting Documentation PFAS Test Report – TenCate Synthetic Turf https://geosurfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CTI.23-097B_Testing-Report_Pivot_1.5-12-year- warranty.pdf (pdf attached). Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 1 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Pivot™ by TenCate Overview Test Report (1.5” Version) Client(s) Name Joe Fields Charles Dawson Client Detail TenCate America 1131 Broadway St. Dayton, TN 37321 Report Number CTI.23-097B Revision Number & Date 1.1 December 19th 2023 Reported by Dr C Young Approved by Scope of Testing / Project At the request of TenCate America a wide range of testing was undertaken on the Pivot™ turf system. Testing included the procedures commonly used both in the United States and European turf markets including identification, physical, chemical, and performance test methods. Testing was conducted to the relevant norms and specification outlined in the procedures below following the best practices outlined in ISO 17025. Test Procedures & Standards The following testing has been undertaken on the TenCate Pivot™ turf system. Identification Tests ASTM D5793 Stitch and Gauge ISO 1763:2020 Tufts Per Unit Area ISO 2549:1972 Pile Length above Backing ASTM D5823 Pile Height ASTM D5848 Backing Weight, Pile Yarn Weight, and Total Weight ISO 8543:2020 Mass Per Unit Area and Total Pile Weight FIFA TM 0023 Decitex of yarn FIFA TM 0025 Yarn thickness ASTM D3218 Fiber Width and Thickness Physical Tests EN 12616:2013 Infiltration / Porosity ASTM D3385 Water Permeability EN 12230:2023 Tensile Strength ASTM D5034-09 Breaking Load (Grab Tear Strength) ISO 4919:2012 Tuft Withdrawal Force ASTM D1335 Tuft Bind EN 13746 Dimensional Stability (Water, Frost & Heated) Chemical Tests EN 12457-4 Leaching Heavy Metals ASTM F2765-14 (2021) Total Lead Content in Synthetic Turf Fibres LKofoid , 3/25/2025, 9:03:36 AM TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 2 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation DIN 38414-17 Extractable Organic Halides (EOX) Annex XVII No 1907/2006 PAHs (Polycyclic-Aromatic Hydrocarbons) GLI Procedure E9-1/E9-3 PFAS (Total Fluorine Content) Performance Tests EN 12235 (FIFA TM001 & ASTM F1551) Ball Rebound Height EN 12234 (FIFA TM003) Ball Roll Distance EN 14808 (FIFA TM004A & ASTM F3189/F2569) Shock Absorption (AAA/AA) EN 14809 (FIFA TM005A & ASTM F3189/F2157) Vertical Deformation (AAA/AA) FIFA TM013 Energy Restitution (AAA) ASTM F355-A Impact Attenuation (Gmax) EN 1177 & ASTM F355-E Critical Fall Height (HIC) EN 15301-1 (FIFA TM006 & ASTM F1551) Rotational Resistance Wear / Sample Conditioning EN 15306 Exposure to Simulated Wear (LISport Classic) FIFA LISport XL Exposure to Simulated Wear (LISport XL) EN 12229 Samples Preparation EN 13744 Immersion in Hot Water EN 13817 Exposure to Hot Air EN 14836 Exposure to Artificial Weathering (UV) Note: testing on the TenCate Pivot™ turf system was undertaken to a range of test methods coving the procedures and standards from the USA and European regions. Some of these methods have crossover in method but are reported separately for clarity and in the units relevant to the specific region / procedure. Product Details The product tested was TenCate Pivot™ The system is described in Appendix A from the specification sheet provided by the client. Note: the turf product was tested with a combination of shockpads for performance specifications which are outlined in the relevant results section to demonstrate the performance of Pivot™ as part of turf system. Test Conditions The test samples were tested at: 23 ± 2 °C (73.4 ± 3.5 °F); and 50 ± 10 % relative humidity Samples were conditioned for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. In accordance with EN 15330-1 (and FIFA test protocol) samples were prepared for testing in different conditions as below: Irrigated / wet samples (mass of water equal to mass of system applied) Heated to 50°C (122°F) Cooled to -5°C (23°F) Preparation of samples were undertaken in accordance with EN 12229 TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 3 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Test Results The results are presented in Appendices as below: Appendix B: Identification Tests Appendix C: Physical Tests Appendix D: Chemical Tests Appendix E: Performance Tests Discussion & Conclusions The TenCate Pivot™ turf system has been tested to a comprehensive range of standards covering identification, physical, chemical and performance criteria. The report outlines the results of the testing to provide TenCate with the required information for their clients to make an informed decision on the turf product. Additional testing can be undertaken upon request including bespoke relationships to norms and requirements if needed. TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 4 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix A – Pivot™ Specification Sheet (1.5” version) TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 5 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix A – Pivot™ Specification Sheet (1.5” version) TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 6 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix B – Test Results: Identification Turf Test Method Unit Description Result Comment ASTM D5793 in” gauge 3/8 - # / in” stitch rate 5.33 - ISO 1763 # / sq m tufts per unit area 22,000 metric # / sq yd tufts per unit area 18,395 imperial (yd) # / sq ft tufts per unit area 2,050 imperial (ft) ISO 2549 mm pile length 38 metric ASTM D5823 in” pile length 1.5 imperial ISO 8543 g / sq m total system mass 4,985 metric g / sq m pile mass 3,925 metric g / sq m primary backing mass 251 metric g / sq m secondary coating mass 749 metric ASTM D5848 oz / sq yd total system mass 150 imperial oz / sq yd pile mass 119 imperial oz / sq yd primary backing mass 7.5 imperial oz / sq yd secondary coating mass 22.5 imperial Yarn(s) Test Method Unit Description Result Comment ASTM D3218 FIFA TM 0025 microns (µm) 101 yarn A XP (5,040/1) microns (µm) 153 yarn B Semi TxT (5,400/6) microns (µm) 144 yarn C TxT (7,200/10) FIFA TM 0023 Dtex decitex of yarn XP – 5,110/1 Semi TxT – 5,511/6 Txt – 7,151/10 denier is circa 10 % lower than Dtex TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 7 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix C – Test Results: Physical Properties Test Method Unit Description Result Comment EN 12616 mm/h falling head infiltration test > 3,000 metric ASTM D3385 in”/h falling head infiltration test > 100 imperial EN 12230 N / mm tensile strength – MD 32 metric tensile strength - CD 40 metric ASTM D5034-09 lbs grab tear – MD 286 imperial grab tear - CD 401 imperial ISO 4919 N tuft bind 45 metric – target 30 N tuft bind after water age 44 metric – target 30 % % change 97 > 75 % ASTM D1335 lbs tuft bind 10.2 imperial EN 13746 % shrinkage (water, frost & heat) < 0.05 requirement < 1 % % extension (water, frost & heat) < 0.05 TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 8 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix D – Test Results: Chemical Test Method Unit Description Result Comment EN 12457-4 / ISO 11885 mg / kg compliance test for leaching - metals lead (Pb) < 0.005 cadmium (Cd) < 0.001 chromium (Cr) < 0.002 tin (Sn) < 0.005 zinc < 0.005 DOC < 0.001 mercury (Hg) < 0.00001 none-detectable ASTM F2765-14 ppm total lead content in synthetic turf fibres > 100 none-detectable DIN 38414-17 mg / kg extractable organic halides (EOX) < 20 none-detectable allowable limit is < 100 mg/kg Annex XVII No 1907/2006 mg / kg PAHs (polycyclic- aromatic hydrocarbons) < 0.2 for each 18 PAHs none-detectable allowable limits is < 20 mg/kg GLI Procedure E9-1/E9-3 PPM PFAS a09: Fluoride < 0.5 ppm F: Fluorine < 10 ppm r19: Organic Fluorine < 10 ppm None-detectable Notes: Test values often are not reported as zero the test method is only accurate enough to stipulate a ‘less than’ result. This value can be different for each specific substance or test method. TenCate Pivot™ has been declared complaint with requirements of REACH within the European Union and EPA / Prop 65 criteria in the United States. TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 9 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix D – Test Results: Performance Test Method (unit) Sample Conditioning FIFA Quality Range Surface Combination TenCate Pivot™ (no pad) TenCate Pivot™ GeoFlo (15 mm) TenCate Pivot™ GeoFlo+ (15 mm) TenCate Pivot™ GeoFlo+ (20 mm) AAA (%) Shock Absorbency EN 14808 FIFA TM004A ASTM F3189/F2569 Dry 55 to 70 58 61 63 66 Wet 58 62 64 67 50°C 59 62 65 68 -5°C 57 60 63 64 LISport Wear Classic 56 61 64 65 LISport Wear XL 57 61 63 65 AAA (mm) Vertical Deformation EN 14809 FIFA TM005A ASTM F3189/F2157 Dry 4 to 11 8.1 8.5 9.3 9.5 Wet 8.2 8.6 9.4 9.6 50°C 8.3 8.5 9.5 9.7 -5°C 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.5 LISport Wear Classic 8.0 8.4 9.3 9.9 LISport Wear XL 8.0 8.3 9.2 10.0 AAA (%) Energy Restitution FIFA TM013 Dry 20 to 50 (not pass/fail) 32 31 29 28 Wet 32 30 28 27 50°C 33 32 29 27 -5°C 32 32 30 26 LISport Wear Classic 35 34 30 29 LISport Wear XL 35 33 31 29 Rotational Resistance (Nm) Grip EN 15301-1 FIFA TM006 ASTM F1551 Dry 25 to 50 32 Wet 30 50°C 31 -5°C 30 LISport Wear Classic 38 LISport Wear XL 39 Impact Attenuation Gmax (g) ASTM F355-A Dry n/a FIFA < 200 ASTM < 165 STC < 150 NFL 137 98 84 77 Wet 139 99 82 75 50°C 139 98 78 77 -5°C 141 100 86 78 LISport Wear Classic 142 99 85 81 LISport Wear XL 144 101 86 83 Critical Fall Height HIC (m) EN 1177 ASTM F355-E Dry n/a FIFA ³ 1.3 WR 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Wet 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 50°C 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 -5°C 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 LISport Wear Classic 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 LISport Wear XL 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Ball Rebound Height (m) EN 12235 FIFA TM001 ASTM F1551 Dry 0.6 to 1.0 0.71 0.67 0.67 0.68 Wet 0.72 0.66 0.69 0.70 50°C 0.73 0.69 0.71 0.72 -5°C 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 LISport Wear Classic 0.76 0.73 0.72 0.73 LISport Wear XL 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.72 Ball Roll Distance (m) EN 12234 FIFA TM003 Dry 4 to 10 6.5 Wet 6.8 LISport Wear XL 7.9 TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 10 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix E – Pivot™ Product Photographs Outlook Fwd: Public Comment: Additional Misrepresentation of Scientific Studies in Cornell’s Submission on Synthetic Turf From Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:47 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, As a follow-up to my earlier message, I’m forwarding additional materials that were previously submitted to the Town Planning Board regarding Cornell’s synthetic turf project on Game Farm Road. We ask that these items also be entered into the official record for the Zoning Board and given full consideration as part of your review process. Thank you again for your time and attention. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if clarification is needed. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:25 AM Subject: Public Comment: Additional Misrepresentation of Scientific Studies in Cornell’s Submission on Synthetic Turf To: <planning@townithacany.gov> Cc: <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am writing to address a serious misrepresentation in Cornell University’s Supplemental Materials Submission dated Februar y 21, 2025, specifically on page 8. Cornell falsely presents the Siegel et al. (2024) study and the U.S. EPA FRAP 2 (2024) study as “companion studies” in an apparent attempt to undermine the findings of Siegel et al. by misrepresenting the EPA study. This misleading framing falsely suggests that the studies are directly related or that the EPA study negates the serious concerns raised in Siegel’s research. These studies are not connected in authorship, methodology, or findings: The Siegel et al. (2024) study examines the toxicological effects of artificial turf materials, finding that weathered tur f samples increased bioactivity on hormone receptors linked to endocrine and cardiometabolic disruption. This raises significant concerns about synthetic turf’s potential health risks. The EPA FRAP 2 (2024) study is an exposure characterization study, assessing how athletes come into contact with chemicals from synthetic turf but explicitly avoiding any toxicological or health risk assessment. It confirms that players are exposed to hazardous substances, particularly in indoor settings, but does not evaluate long-term health effects. Cornell’s submission misrepresents the EPA study in two ways: 1. By falsely linking it to Siegel et al. as though the studies are complementary. In reality, FRAP 2 does not assess toxicity, while Siegel et al. does. 2. By implying that FRAP 2 dismisses concerns about synthetic tur f toxicity, when in fact, the study acknowledges exposure risks but does not investigate their health consequences. This is an attempt to downplay the Siegel study’s findings, which raise serious questions about the endocrine-disrupting and cardiometabolic toxicity of synthetic turf materials. The Planning Board should reject this misleading framing and demand a scientifically accurate and transparent evaluation of synthetic turf’s risks. I respectfully request that this letter be added into the record together with my earlier submission today, calling for the recall of the negative declaration for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). That letter included Siegel et al. (2024) and urged board members to closely examine its findings. This is part of an ongoing pattern of scientific misrepresentation by Cornell University, which we have repeatedly raised concerns about in public comments throughout this process. Despite these efforts, the board ignored our warnings and proceeded to issue a negative declaration unanimously last night. This failure to engage with the scientific evidence is unacceptable and undermines public trust in the decision-making process. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org References: Siegel, Kyle R., Brooklynn R. Murray, Jeff Gearhart, and Christopher D. Kassotis. "In Vitro Endocrine and Cardiometabolic Toxicity Associated with Artificial Turf Materials." Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. September 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104562 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668924002023 This study examines the potential health risks of artificial turf materials, analyzing both new and weathered samples. The findings indicate that weathered turf samples had stronger effects on various hormone receptors, including androgen, estrogen, and thyroid receptors. Additionally, all turf extracts activated a receptor linked to toxin processing (AhR), with some causing heart cell toxicity in rats. These results raise concerns about the endocrine and cardiometabolic effects of artificial turf materials, warranting further investigation into their impact on human health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan: Final Report, Part 2 – Exposure Characterization, Volumes 1 and 2. EPA/600/R-24/044, April 2024. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/tire-crumb-exposure-characterization-report-volumes-1- and-2. This follow-up study known as known as FRAP (Federal Research Action Plan) 2 assesses human exposure to chemicals in synthetic turf fields through inhalation, dermal contact, and ingestion. Findings confirm that players are exposed to hazardous substances, particularly in indoor environments, though the report does not conduct a full health risk assessment. Outlook Fwd: Formal Complaint Regarding March 4th Town Planning Board Meeting From Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:49 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> 1 attachment (11 MB) Petaluma.pdf; Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, As a follow-up to my earlier message, I’m forwarding additional materials that were previously submitted to the Town Planning Board regarding Cornell’s synthetic turf project on Game Farm Road. We ask that these items also be entered into the official record for the Zoning Board and given full consideration as part of your review process. Thank you again for your time and attention. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if clarification is needed. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:00 AM Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding March 4th Town Planning Board Meeting To: <planning@townithacany.gov> Cc: <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, We are writing to formally file a complaint regarding the handling of public participation at the Town Planning Board meeting on March 4th, where Cornell University President Michael Kotlikoff, Chemist Brett P. Fors, field hockey parents, field hockey players, alumni, and the athletic director attended and spoke against Zero Waste Ithaca’s submissions. It is important for us to understand why Cornell’s President and affiliates were present at the meeting, especially given that we were informed by a Town Planning Board staff member that it was unclear whether we would be allowed to speak. As we understand it, the "Persons to be Heard" section is typically reserved for public comments unrelated to agenda items, and Cornell’s synthetic turf project was on the agenda that evening—yet, no public hearing was scheduled. When we inquired about whether we would have an opportunity to speak, we were told it was uncertain. Given this, we invited others but had to make clear that we might not be able to speak, out of respect for their time, since we could not be sure we would be permitted to address the Board. Yet, on March 4th, Cornell brought a significant number of representatives, including high-ranking officials and students, who were able to speak at the meeting. We would like to understand how and why this was possible, and why this level of participation was seemingly coordinated when it was unclear if members of the public would be allowed to speak. We request that this email be entered into the public record as a formal protest regarding the handling of public participation at the meeting. Furthermore, because these correspondences pertain directly to procedural fairness and transparency regarding the Negative Declaration (Neg Dec), we request that the Town Planning Board proactively disclose any existing relevant records now, prior to finalizing the Neg Dec, to ensure a complete and accurate record of the decision-making process. Additionally, I'm attaching Safe Healthy Playing Fields' public comment submitted to the City of Petaluma, CA, as it contains relevant information and links to sources regarding TenCate. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org P.S.: We are filing a separate FOIL request for email correspondences and records related to the March 4th meeting between Town Planning Board members, staff, and Cornell University representatives. Subject: TenCate’s Synthetic Turf: Pesticide Use, Microplastic Pollution, and ExxonMobil Ties Contradict Cornell’s Sustainability Claims Dear Town Planning Board Members, Cornell University has selected TenCate as the manufacturer for its planned “PFAS-free” synthetic turf field on Game Farm Road. However, the university’s claims of environmental sustainability are contradicted by TenCate’s own maintenance guidelines and troubling industry practices. First, despite Cornell’s repeated assertions that synthetic turf eliminates the need for herbicides, TenCate’s 2024 Maintenance Manual explicitly allows only the use of Spectracide and Roundup—both known carcinogens—for weed control. This directly contradicts statements made by Cornell chemist Brett P. Fors at the March 4, 2025, Town Planning Board meeting, where he falsely claimed that synthetic turf requires no pesticides. The manufacturer ’s own documentation proves otherwise. See Page 15 of the manual of “Approved System Components.” Second, TenCate’s artificial turf is demonstrably prone to fragmentation, releasing microplastics into the environment. A video recorded on February 4, 2025, by Pamela Bond in San Jose, California, shows TenCate’s Pivot synthetic turf failing within just three months of installation. Turf blades were visibly breaking down, shedding microplastic fibers into the environment—undermining industry claims that synthetic turf prevents pollution. Third, TenCate’s partnership with ExxonMobil further exposes the company’s role in environmental harm. TenCate sends used synthetic turf to ExxonMobil’s Baytown, Texas, facility for so-called 'advanced recycling' (i.e., pyrolysis), a process widely criticized for inefficiency, high emissions, and environmental justice concerns. As documented by Dr. Neil Carman in his June 25, 2024, letter to the City of Ithaca Planning Board, communities near Exxon’s Baytown complex have been fighting toxic pollution for decades. The addition of synthetic turf waste processing only exacerbates the environmental burden on these already overburdened communities. Additionally, TenCate’s home country, the Netherlands, is moving away from artificial turf, as evidenced by the Eredivisie’s decision to ban synthetic turf starting in the 2025–26 season. This marks a major shift in Dutch professional football, where all clubs in the Eredivisie and Keuken Kampioen Divisie will be required to play on natural grass or hybrid pitches. The decision, made unanimously by the leagues, is the result of a long-term transition that began in 2018 and aligns with broader European efforts to phase out artificial turf. As a Dutch-based company, TenCate now finds its own country rejecting the very product it promotes, signaling a growing recognition of artificial turf ’s drawbacks, including concerns over player safety, environmental impact, and game quality. Cornell’s selection of TenCate as a synthetic turf supplier raises serious concerns: ● No independent PFAS testing has been conducted on TenCate’s products under full public oversight. ● TenCate’s own manual permits herbicide use, refuting Cornell’s pesticide-free claims. ● Documented premature degradation of TenCate turf contradicts industry promises about durability and environmental safety. ● TenCate’s involvement with ExxonMobil’s chemical recycling scheme ties Cornell’s project to a deeply flawed and polluting industry practice. The evidence is clear: Cornell’s claims about synthetic turf sustainability are misleading. The university cannot ignore the environmental and public health consequences of choosing TenCate as its turf supplier. Sincerely, Analyse Adams Food & Water Watch Volunteer References: ● Pamela Bond, John Mise Park, San Jose, CA: TenCate Pivot Turf Failure (Video, February 4, 2025). A video shared by a grassroots activist in California. https://share.icloud.com/photos/06b1nGfaanJ6PyjxN0sXMdtNQ ● Dr. Neil Carman, Letter to the City of Ithaca Planning Board, June 25, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Hjoae7HMpXo3ueK92Auq71sJXXhsDUT/view?usp=sharing ● TenCate Americas, TenCate Pivot 2024 Maintenance Manual V1 (Dayton, TN: TenCate Americas, 2024). https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/povlnuhbuh5qy1lbjq5jx/TenCate-Pivot-2024-Maintenance-Manu al-V1.pdf?rlkey=ui10g16wenrdrjgy05rpyeidk&st=5l74l8dw&dl=0 ● Alexander H. Tullo, "ExxonMobil Will Recycle Synthetic Turf," Chemical & Engineering News, October 1, 2022. https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/ExxonMobil-recycle-synthetic-turf/100/i35 ● James Bruggers, “In Houston, a City Council Member Questions ‘Advanced’ Recycling of Plastic and a City Collaboration with ExxonMobil.” Inside Climate News. December 13, 2024. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13122024/houston-city-council-member-questions-exxonmob il-plastic-recycling/ ● Eredivisie. "No More Artificial Turf in the Eredivisie from the 2025-26 Season." Eredivisie, May 28, 2024. https://eredivisie.eu/news/no-more-artificial-turf-in-the-eredivisie-from-the-2025-26-season/. Outlook Fwd: Public Comment: Protecting Bird and Wildlife Habitat from Synthetic Turf at Game Farm Road From Zero Waste Ithaca <info@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:56 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> 1 attachment (7 MB) Wildlife GFR Site 3 18 2025.pdf; Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I believe the following public comment for the Game Farm Road Site project is also in your interest. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Amina Mohamed <am2565@cornell.edu> Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 11:47 AM Subject: Public Comment: Protecting Bird and Wildlife Habitat from Synthetic Turf at Game Farm Road To: <planning@townithacany.gov>, <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board members, Please find the attached public comment for the Game Farm Road synthetic turf project. Thank you, Amina Subject: Public Comment: Protecting Bird and WildlifeHabitat from Synthetic Turf at Game Farm Road Dear Members of the Town Planning Board, I am writing to express my concern regarding the planned installation of synthetic turf at multiple locations in the Game Farm Road area. Recent observations have revealed this area to be a critical habitat for various raptor species, including Red-tailed Hawks, Northern Harriers, Rough-legged Hawks, Sharp-shinned Hawks, Cooper's Hawks, and Merlins. These birds rely on the existing natural grasslands and semi-natural cover as a critical hunting ground, preying on small mammals and birds that depend on the current ecosystem. Scientific studies highlight the negative ecological impacts of artificial turf, particularly on avian diversity. Research such as Sánchez-Sotomayor et al. (2022) published in Bird Conservation International demonstrates that replacing natural grass with synthetic alternatives leads to a significant decline in bird species richness, abundance, and overall biodiversity. Although much of the research focuses on urban bird populations, the fundamental ecological principles apply to raptors as well: the loss of natural habitat and associated food sources can lead to a decline in these apex predators. Cornell University in their Supplemental Materials Submission on January 31, 2025 falsely claims on page 8 and 9 that the Game Farm Road site is not a habitat for threatened or endangered species. The following raptor species observed in the Game Farm Road area will likely be affected, of which three of them - Northern Harriers, Sharp-Shinned Hawks, and Cooker ’s Hawks - are listed as Species of Special Concern or of Greatest Conservation Need and Threatened in New York State: ● Red-tailed Hawks hunt from perches or while soaring, capturing prey such as small mammals and birds primarily on the ground. ● Northern Harriers rely on both vision and hearing to locate small mammals in open fields. This species is listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need and Threatened in New York State. ● Rough-legged Hawks hover and scan open terrain for rodents and other small animals. ● Sharp-shinned Hawks and Cooper's Hawks specialize in hunting small birds in semi-natural cover. Both species are classified as Species of Special Concern in New York State, meaning they are at risk of becoming threatened or endangered without continued protective measures. ● Merlins are small falcons that prey on songbirds, which rely on a healthy, biodiverse environment. Northern Harrier Sharp-Shinned Hawk Cooper ’s Hawk Furthermore, the latest agenda packet for 3/18/25 meeting revealed the Three Birds Orchid (triphora trianthophoros), a threatened species in NY, VT, ME, NH and endangered In MA, extirpated in CT, was identified as potentially inhabiting the project area. The applicant, Cornell University, asserts that the Three Birds Orchid is unlikely to inhabit the project site because it requires beech forest, which they claim is absent. However, this assertion seems an oversimplification and not entirely accurate. While the orchid thrives in moist, mature deciduous woodlands, particularly beech-maple forests, it is not strictly limited to them. The species also occurs in other deciduous forest types that provide deep leaf litter, well-drained organic-rich soils, and minimal competing vegetation. Additionally, the orchid's presence is heavily dependent on specific mycorrhizal fungi, which are not exclusive to beech forests. The applicant’s dismissal of habitat suitability based solely on the absence of beech trees fails to account for these broader ecological requirements. A comprehensive field survey including adjacent forests by an independent ecologist is necessary to determine whether the project site may, in fact, support the species rather than relying on an unverified claim. Three Birds Orchid Replacing natural grass with synthetic turf, parking paving and other developments disrupts this ecosystem by eliminating vital prey species for raptors such as rodents, insects, and small birds. The implications extend beyond these birds of prey, affecting the entire local food web. Additionally, synthetic turf and other development creates an unnatural, sterile environment that lacks the soil-dwelling organisms necessary for maintaining biodiversity. Research such as Bernat-Ponce et al. (2020) has shown that replacing semi-natural cover with artificial surfaces reduces habitat suitability and trophic resources, leading to declines in bird populations. Furthermore, Khalid et al. (2020) highlight how microplastics from artificial surfaces disrupt soil ecosystems, altering nutrient cycling and affecting plant growth, which in turn impacts insect populations that serve as prey for many bird species. (Note: Khalid et al. is conveniently dismissed as irrelevant study by Cornell University among many others in Zero Waste Ithaca’s bibliography in Cornell University’s submissions). Recent research has further demonstrated the risks that synthetic materials pose to avian species. Tokunaga et al. (2023) found polypropylene, polyethylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate microplastics in the lungs of wild birds in Japan, providing direct evidence that birds inhale airborne microplastics. These same plastics are major components of synthetic turf, yet Cornell dismisses this study as irrelevant because it does not specifically focus on synthetic turf fields. This argument ignores the well-documented shedding of synthetic fibers from artificial turf blades and other turf system components due to wear and weathering, which can lead to inhalation and ingestion by birds and other wildlife. While polypropylene, polyethylene, and EVA microplastics may come from multiple sources, synthetic turf is a known contributor to microplastic pollution through abrasion, runoff, and atmospheric dispersion. Given that raptors like Northern Harriers and Cooper ’s Hawks hunt in open fields, they are particularly vulnerable to airborne contaminants that accumulate in their hunting grounds. Dismissing this research disregards the broader implications of synthetic turf ’s environmental impact on avian species. Cornell's claim that there are "100 acres of natural space" surrounding the project site (February 21, 2025 Supplemental Materials submission, p. 8) deliberately obscures the broader context: Cornell plans to develop the entire site with additional synthetic turf fields, parking lots, and artificial structures. The current piecemeal approach to approvals allows Cornell to evade a full Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) by avoiding comprehensive scrutiny for the entire project around the site. Rather than developing all projects at once potentially causing controversy, Cornell has strategically started development away from residential areas, incrementally expanding synthetic surfaces while minimizing opposition at each phase. The synthetic turf baseball field in the middle of the area was first, and now the northernmost site on Game Farm Road is being targeted for the field hockey field. The long-term plan for additional artificial turf, increased pavement, more lighting, and increased vehicular activity will introduce noise pollution, light pollution, runoff contamination, and trash and litter accumulation, all of which negatively impact wildlife beyond the immediate site. It is also important to note that turf blades backing and shock pads are all sources of microplastic and PFAS pollution. On that note, we noticed Cornell’s submissions conveniently omitted Whitehead’s 2023 study, a full Ph.D. dissertation, which provides critical evidence of PFAS contamination in artificial turf blades, analyzing 27 samples using multiple methods. PFAS were detected in all samples, with a median concentration of 5.1 ng/g and a maximum of 41.7 ng/g, while organic fluorine measurements indicated the presence of fluorinated polymer processing aids. Cornell instead cites and misrepresents Lauria et al.’s 2022 study, whose result Whtiehead discusses in her dissertation. This is a subject for another comment, but is yet another clear example of how Cornell University selectively reads and misrepresents studies from Zero Waste Ithaca’s bibliography. The sources referenced above are just a few examples of the extensive research available in the carefully curated bibliography, which includes peer-reviewed literature on the environmental impacts of synthetic turf. The ongoing pattern of misrepresentations of the studies and our submissions is a great concern. Planning board members are strongly urged to consult the original submissions and sources in our bibliography directly before making decisions based on misrepresentations. Given the strong scientific evidence indicating the detrimental effects of synthetic turf on bird populations and broader ecosystems, we urge the Town Planning Board to reconsider this proposal and prioritize conservation-minded alternatives – a call on GEIS. Maintaining natural grass and investing in habitat preservation aligns with the broader goal of protecting biodiversity and ensuring that species such as those listed above continue to thrive in the Game Farm Road area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Amina Mohamed Ph.D. Candidate Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Cornell University References: Audubon Center New York. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): Guidance for Conservation. Accessed March 10, 2025. https://greenelandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Audubon-Northern_Harrier.pdf. This document provides conservation guidance for the Northern Harrier, which is listed as a Threatened species in New York State. It details the species' habitat preferences, hunting behavior, and nesting habits, emphasizing its reliance on open grasslands and wetland areas. The resource highlights ongoing conservation efforts and the importance of maintaining suitable environments for this raptor ’s survival. Bernat-Ponce, Edgar, José A. Gil-Delgado, and Germán M. López-Iborra. "Replacement of Semi-Natural Cover with Artificial Substrates in Urban Parks Causes a Decline of House Sparrows Passer Domesticus in Mediterranean Towns." Urban Ecosystems 23, no. 3 (2020): 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00931-w. This study investigates the effects of urban park remodelling, specifically replacing semi-natural substrates with artificial surfaces, on the abundance of House Sparrows in Mediterranean towns. Results show that such remodelling reduces habitat suitability and trophic (nutrition or feeding) resources, leading to a significant decline in sparrow populations, emphasizing the need for urban planning measures to preserve biodiversity. Cayuga Bird Club. “Reynolds Game Farm.” Accessed March 10, 2025. https://sites.google.com/site/cbc14850/where-to-bird/reynolds-game-farm . This webpage provides an overview of the Reynolds Game Farm, highlighting its role as a habitat for various raptor species, including Red-tailed Hawks, Northern Harriers, Rough-legged Hawks, Sharp-shinned Hawks, Cooper's Hawks, and Merlins. Notably, the Northern Harrier is classified as Threatened in New York State, and both the Sharp-shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk are designated as Species of Special Concern. The site has historically hosted high concentrations of Red-tailed Hawks and continues to support diverse raptor populations. This source is valuable in documenting the ecological significance of the area and reinforcing concerns about the impact of synthetic turf development on protected and at-risk species. Khalid, Noreen, Muhammad Aqeel, and Ali Noman. "Microplastics Could Be a Threat to Plants in Terrestrial Systems Directly or Indirectly." Environmental Pollution 267 (December 2020): 115653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115653.This review examines the potential threats posed by microplastics (MPs) to terrestrial ecosystems, focusing on their impacts on soil and plants. It highlights how MPs alter soil physicochemical properties, affect plant community composition, and potentially create toxicity through root uptake. The study also explores how MPs disrupt nutrient cycling and the soil's carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, emphasizing their long-term environmental risks. The authors stress the limited understanding of MPs in terrestrial systems and call for further research to address these gaps, particularly regarding their effects on ecosystem functioning and biota. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. "Rare Plant Profile: Triphora trianthophoros (Three Birds Orchid)." April 2022. https://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/docs/triphora-trianthophoros-thr ee-birds-orchid.pdf. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish and Wildlife Species of New York State.” Accessed March 10, 2025. https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.html. This webpage provides an official listing of endangered, threatened, and special concern species in New York State. It identifies the Northern Harrier as a Threatened species and the Sharp-shinned Hawk and Cooper ’s Hawk as Species of Special Concern. The resource is valuable for understanding the legal protections afforded to wildlife at risk and their conservation status within the state. Ramstetter, Jennifer M. Triphora trianthophora (Swartz) Rydb. (Three-birds Orchid) Conservation and Research Plan. New England Wild Flower Society, May 2001. https://newfs-society.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Triphoratrianthophora.pdf. Sánchez-Sotomayor D, Martín-Higuera A, Gil-Delgado JA, Gálvez Á, Bernat-Ponce E. “Artificial Grass in Parks as a Potential New Threat for Urban Bird Communities.” Bird Conservation International. Cambridge University Press, July 26, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959270922000119 This study demonstrates that replacing natural grass with artificial turf in urban parks in eastern Spain negatively impacted bird diversity. Parks with artificial grass show reduced species richness, abundance, and gamma diversity compared to parks with natural grass. These findings highlight the harmful effects of artificial turf on urban bird communities and its threat to bird conservation. Tokunaga, Yurika, Hiroshi Okochi, Yuto Tani, Yasuhiro Niida, Toshio Tachibana, Kazuo Saigawa, Kinya Katayama, Sachiko Moriguchi, Takuya Kato, and Shin-ichi Hayama. "Airborne Microplastics Detected in the Lungs of Wild Birds in Japan." Chemosphere 321 (April 2023): 138032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138032. This study revealed the presence of airborne microplastics (AMPs) in the lungs of wild birds in Japan using µFTIR spectroscopy, marking the first evidence of AMP inhalation in avian species. Common polymers such as polypropylene, polyethylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate were found in the lungs, emphasizing the dual exposure risk of ingestion and inhalation for birds in polluted environments. Wang, M., Zhou, P., DuBay, S., Zhang, S., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Cao, Y., Hu, Z., He, X., Wang, S., Li, M., Fan, C., Zou, B., Zhou, C., and Wu, Y. “Assessing Microplastic and Nanoplastic Contamination in Bird Lungs: Evidence of Ecological Risks and Bioindicator Potential.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 487. April 5, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.137274. This study provides evidence of airborne microplastic (MNP) contamination in the lungs of birds, demonstrating the pervasive nature of MNP pollution and its ecological risks. The research analyzed 51 bird species, finding microplastics in every lung sample tested, with an average of 416.22 MP particles per gram of lung tissue. The detection of both microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) underscores the scale of airborne plastic pollution and its potential impact on respiratory health. Larger-bodied, terrestrial, and carnivorous birds exhibited higher plastic burdens, indicating that ecological traits influence exposure levels. Whitehead, Heather D. Development of Analytical Methods for Highly Selective and Sensitive Analysis of Compounds Relevant to Human Health and the Environment. PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2023. https://curate.nd.edu/articles/thesis/Development_of_Analytical_Methods_for_Highly_Se lective_and_Sensitive_Analysis_of_Compounds_Relevant_to_Human_Health_and_the_ Environment/24869502?file=43760148. Dropbox full pdf backup: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/73xaku3dwi0jjtgamnoe3/WhiteheadHD042023D-1.pdf?r lkey=y871tnevcqk4r0kwlzd42qhke&st=ioc6xn65&dl=0. This dissertation provides critical evidence of PFAS contamination in artificial turf blades, analyzing 27 samples using multiple methods. PFAS were detected in all samples, with a median concentration of 5.1 ng/g and a maximum of 41.7 ng/g, while organic fluorine measurements indicated the presence of fluorinated polymer processing aids. These findings confirm that PFAS are embedded in synthetic turf materials, raising concerns about long-term environmental and human exposure risks. Woelke, Dianne. Public Comment to The Town of Ithaca, NY, Planning Board. Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc., March 4, 2025. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aapcjpmjg2i2z0hqcalbz/Dianne-Woelke-Cornell-4-Mar-2 025.pdf?rlkey=chlldd7nj6ikchjlne2m2v5ac&st=dlwr0wk5&dl=0 This document, prepared by Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc., presents arguments in favor of a full environmental review for the Cornell GFR Hockey Field project. It highlights concerns regarding synthetic turf, including its environmental, health, and financial impacts. The report cites various studies on microplastic pollution, toxic runoff, and the presence of harmful chemicals in artificial turf. It also discusses legal and regulatory considerations, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability from Cornell University. Outlook Turf concerns From Wendy Susan Wolfe <ww16@cornell.edu> Date Mon 3/24/2025 12:40 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> **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 do not allow Cornell’s synthetic turf to go forward, for the reasons stated below.  Wendy Wolfe, Town of Ithaca  1. Signage Placement in Off-Limits Areas "I oppose Cornell's request to place signs within the public right-of-way. According to the Town of Ithaca's zoning regulations, such encroachments are prohibited to preserve public spaces and prevent visual clutter. Allowing these signs would set a concerning precedent, leading to potential billboard-like intrusions that degrade our community's aesthetic. Ithaca's zoning laws are designed to protect our scenic environment, much like Vermont's successful prohibition of roadside billboards. I urge the board to uphold these standards and deny the variance." 2. Synthetic Turf as an Impervious Surface "I am concerned about Cornell's synthetic turf project, which effectively creates an impervious surface. The Town of Ithaca's zoning ordinance emphasizes minimizing increases in impervious surfaces to manage stormwater runoff and prevent flooding. Synthetic turf prevents natural water infiltration, leading to increased runoff and potential environmental issues. I request that the zoning board consider these implications carefully and require comprehensive stormwater management plans before approval." 3. Public Health Implications of Synthetic Turf "I wish to highlight the public health concerns associated with synthetic turf fields. Studies have shown that these surfaces can reach extreme temperatures, posing heat-related health risks. Additionally, there is potential for chemical leaching into our water systems. The Town of Ithaca's zoning laws are established to protect public health and safety. I urge the board to thoroughly assess these health risks and ensure that any development complies with our community's health standards." 4. Environmental Impact of Synthetic Turf "I am concerned about the environmental impact of Cornell's proposed synthetic turf field. The Town of Ithaca's zoning ordinance requires consideration of environmentally sensitive areas and mandates that developments minimize adverse environmental effects. Synthetic turf can contribute to microplastic pollution and negatively affect local ecosystems. I urge the zoning board to require a comprehensive environmental impact assessment before granting approval." 5. Lighting and Wildlife Disruption "I oppose Cornell's request for reflective signage materials, as they may lead to increased light pollution. The Town of Ithaca's zoning regulations aim to protect the community's welfare, which includes minimizing light pollution that can disrupt local wildlife, particularly nocturnal species. I request that the board consider these ecological impacts and deny the variance for reflective materials." Outlook Fwd: Request for Recall of Negative Declaration – Flawed PFAS Testing & New Evidence From Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:45 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> 1 attachment (6 MB) CTI.23-097B_Testing-Report_Pivot_1.5-12-year-warranty.pdf; Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I’m forwarding the letter below, which I previously sent to the Town Planning Board, as it contains critical unresolved concerns related to Cornell’s synthetic turf project on Game F arm Road. These include flawed PFAS testing protocols, lack of transparency, and new scientific evidence that was not meaningfully addressed prior to the board’s decision to issue a Negative Declaration. Since the Zoning Board is now being asked to consider variances tied to this project, I believe it’s essential that these materials be entered into the record and carefully reviewed as part of your deliberation. I will be forwarding a few additional items as well, to ensure that all relevant concerns are available for your consideration. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or if you would like further documentation. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:00 AM Subject: Request for Recall of Negative Declaration – Flawed PFAS Testing & New Evidence To: <planning@townithacany.gov> Cc: <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> Dear Town Planning Board Members, We are deeply disappointed by your unanimous decision to issue a Negative Declaration for the Game Farm Road synthetic turf project, despite a significant number of residents voicing their opposition and extensive evidence of environmental harm submitted by the public prior to the meeting. We formally request a recall of this determination before the finalization of the paperwork and submit the following additional information for your record. Cornell’s Misleading “Independent” Testing Cornell claims that, in addition to the manufacturer’s guarantee, it will conduct an “independent, third- party” test of the turf "prior to leaving the manufacturer (pre-shipment)" (January 31, 2025, Supplemental Materials Submission, p. 10). Far from inspiring confidence, this arrangement is fundamentally flawed. Testing conducted at the manufacturer’s own facility is inherently compromised, allowing the manufacturer to control the process, sample selection, and potentially even the lab conducting the analysis. This is not independent oversight—it is a pre-approved PR maneuver disguised as science. True independent testing must be conducted off-site, without manufacturer involvement, using EPA- standardized methods (meeting or exceeding EPA Method 1633, available since 2021), with full public disclosure of all relevant details immediately upon completion. Anything less is a mockery of legitimate environmental review. Multiple members of the public raised these concerns in their comments, yet the board chose to ignore them and proceeded with the Negative Declaration. New Evidence: TenCate’s Own Test Results Confirm PFAS in Synthetic Turf Test results from TenCate’s own manual confirm PFAS in their synthetic turf, directly contradicting claims that it is “PFAS-Free” (see attached report). Failure of Transparency in Cornell’s PFAS Testing Multiple members of the public have raised concerns about the lack of transparency in Cornell’s so- called “third-party” PFAS testing, yet the board has failed to require independent, standardized testing or provide clarity on: The specific testing methods used The detection thresholds applied The laboratory name and credentials Whether independent review was conducted When and how the public can access full test results Testing should always be conducted by independent third-party laboratories using appropriate testing techniques and parameters. Signed affidavits claiming “PFAS-Free” are never acceptable. Cornell’s claim that: “...the turf manufacturer attests that no polyfluoroalkyl substances (or PFAS) chemicals will be used in the synthetic material.” This statement is meaningless without independent verification, yet Cornell and the board are treating it as proof. It is not science—it is an unverified marketing claim. Tactics Used to Generate False “PFAS-Free” Claims We have observed a variety of misleading testing techniques used to create false claims of “PFAS-Free” status: Inappropriate test methods (e.g., soil or water testing instead of correct solid/plastic testing methods). Use of deionized water or methanol as a solvent, which does not properly extract PFAS from plastics. Setting Reporting Limits (RLs) too high, making it impossible to detect PFAS at relevant levels (e.g., 590 ppt for PFBA and 290 ppt for other PFAS). Failure to perform the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), which simulates real- world PFAS leaching over time. Omission of “J” values, which estimate PFAS concentrations below the Reporting Limit but above the Method Detection Limit. Despite these significant scientific concerns, the board has rubber-stamped not only the manufacturer’s self-reported test—conducted without regulatory oversight—but also Cornell’s so- called “independent, third-party” test, which will take place before the turf even leaves the manufacturer’s site. This failure to apply due diligence undermines public trust and disregards scientific best practices for PFAS detection. Additional Scientific Findings on Artificial Tur f Toxicity We urge the board to carefully review the following peer-reviewed study: Siegel, Kyle R., Brooklynn R. Murray, Jeff Gearhart, and Christopher D. Kassotis. "In Vitro Endocrine and Cardiometabolic Toxicity Associated with Artificial Turf Materials." Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, September 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104562 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668924002023 This study examined both new and weathered artificial turf samples and found: Stronger endocrine-disrupting effects in weathered samples, affecting androgen, estrogen, and thyroid receptors. Activation of the AhR receptor, which is linked to toxin processing and carcinogenicity. Toxic effects on heart cells in rats, raising serious concerns about potential cardiometabolic harm in humans. These findings reinforce the urgent need for rigorous environmental and health assessments before allowing synthetic turf installation. Demands & Next Steps The board must immediately reopen SEQRA review and require proper PFAS testing before finalizing the Negative Declaration. Failure to do so will confirm that this decision was made without legitimate environmental review. Ignoring this critical issue will: Jeopardize public health and environmental safety. Demonstrate outright disregard for meaningful public input. Expose the board’s unwillingness to enforce legitimate environmental oversight. This letter and supporting evidence must be logged as part of the official record. Supporting Documentation PFAS Test Report – TenCate Synthetic Turf https://geosurfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CTI.23-097B_Testing-Report_Pivot_1.5-12-year- warranty.pdf (pdf attached). Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 1 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Pivot™ by TenCate Overview Test Report (1.5” Version) Client(s) Name Joe Fields Charles Dawson Client Detail TenCate America 1131 Broadway St. Dayton, TN 37321 Report Number CTI.23-097B Revision Number & Date 1.1 December 19th 2023 Reported by Dr C Young Approved by Scope of Testing / Project At the request of TenCate America a wide range of testing was undertaken on the Pivot™ turf system. Testing included the procedures commonly used both in the United States and European turf markets including identification, physical, chemical, and performance test methods. Testing was conducted to the relevant norms and specification outlined in the procedures below following the best practices outlined in ISO 17025. Test Procedures & Standards The following testing has been undertaken on the TenCate Pivot™ turf system. Identification Tests ASTM D5793 Stitch and Gauge ISO 1763:2020 Tufts Per Unit Area ISO 2549:1972 Pile Length above Backing ASTM D5823 Pile Height ASTM D5848 Backing Weight, Pile Yarn Weight, and Total Weight ISO 8543:2020 Mass Per Unit Area and Total Pile Weight FIFA TM 0023 Decitex of yarn FIFA TM 0025 Yarn thickness ASTM D3218 Fiber Width and Thickness Physical Tests EN 12616:2013 Infiltration / Porosity ASTM D3385 Water Permeability EN 12230:2023 Tensile Strength ASTM D5034-09 Breaking Load (Grab Tear Strength) ISO 4919:2012 Tuft Withdrawal Force ASTM D1335 Tuft Bind EN 13746 Dimensional Stability (Water, Frost & Heated) Chemical Tests EN 12457-4 Leaching Heavy Metals ASTM F2765-14 (2021) Total Lead Content in Synthetic Turf Fibres LKofoid , 3/25/2025, 9:03:36 AM TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 2 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation DIN 38414-17 Extractable Organic Halides (EOX) Annex XVII No 1907/2006 PAHs (Polycyclic-Aromatic Hydrocarbons) GLI Procedure E9-1/E9-3 PFAS (Total Fluorine Content) Performance Tests EN 12235 (FIFA TM001 & ASTM F1551) Ball Rebound Height EN 12234 (FIFA TM003) Ball Roll Distance EN 14808 (FIFA TM004A & ASTM F3189/F2569) Shock Absorption (AAA/AA) EN 14809 (FIFA TM005A & ASTM F3189/F2157) Vertical Deformation (AAA/AA) FIFA TM013 Energy Restitution (AAA) ASTM F355-A Impact Attenuation (Gmax) EN 1177 & ASTM F355-E Critical Fall Height (HIC) EN 15301-1 (FIFA TM006 & ASTM F1551) Rotational Resistance Wear / Sample Conditioning EN 15306 Exposure to Simulated Wear (LISport Classic) FIFA LISport XL Exposure to Simulated Wear (LISport XL) EN 12229 Samples Preparation EN 13744 Immersion in Hot Water EN 13817 Exposure to Hot Air EN 14836 Exposure to Artificial Weathering (UV) Note: testing on the TenCate Pivot™ turf system was undertaken to a range of test methods coving the procedures and standards from the USA and European regions. Some of these methods have crossover in method but are reported separately for clarity and in the units relevant to the specific region / procedure. Product Details The product tested was TenCate Pivot™ The system is described in Appendix A from the specification sheet provided by the client. Note: the turf product was tested with a combination of shockpads for performance specifications which are outlined in the relevant results section to demonstrate the performance of Pivot™ as part of turf system. Test Conditions The test samples were tested at: 23 ± 2 °C (73.4 ± 3.5 °F); and 50 ± 10 % relative humidity Samples were conditioned for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. In accordance with EN 15330-1 (and FIFA test protocol) samples were prepared for testing in different conditions as below: Irrigated / wet samples (mass of water equal to mass of system applied) Heated to 50°C (122°F) Cooled to -5°C (23°F) Preparation of samples were undertaken in accordance with EN 12229 TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 3 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Test Results The results are presented in Appendices as below: Appendix B: Identification Tests Appendix C: Physical Tests Appendix D: Chemical Tests Appendix E: Performance Tests Discussion & Conclusions The TenCate Pivot™ turf system has been tested to a comprehensive range of standards covering identification, physical, chemical and performance criteria. The report outlines the results of the testing to provide TenCate with the required information for their clients to make an informed decision on the turf product. Additional testing can be undertaken upon request including bespoke relationships to norms and requirements if needed. TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 4 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix A – Pivot™ Specification Sheet (1.5” version) TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 5 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix A – Pivot™ Specification Sheet (1.5” version) TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 6 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix B – Test Results: Identification Turf Test Method Unit Description Result Comment ASTM D5793 in” gauge 3/8 - # / in” stitch rate 5.33 - ISO 1763 # / sq m tufts per unit area 22,000 metric # / sq yd tufts per unit area 18,395 imperial (yd) # / sq ft tufts per unit area 2,050 imperial (ft) ISO 2549 mm pile length 38 metric ASTM D5823 in” pile length 1.5 imperial ISO 8543 g / sq m total system mass 4,985 metric g / sq m pile mass 3,925 metric g / sq m primary backing mass 251 metric g / sq m secondary coating mass 749 metric ASTM D5848 oz / sq yd total system mass 150 imperial oz / sq yd pile mass 119 imperial oz / sq yd primary backing mass 7.5 imperial oz / sq yd secondary coating mass 22.5 imperial Yarn(s) Test Method Unit Description Result Comment ASTM D3218 FIFA TM 0025 microns (µm) 101 yarn A XP (5,040/1) microns (µm) 153 yarn B Semi TxT (5,400/6) microns (µm) 144 yarn C TxT (7,200/10) FIFA TM 0023 Dtex decitex of yarn XP – 5,110/1 Semi TxT – 5,511/6 Txt – 7,151/10 denier is circa 10 % lower than Dtex TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 7 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix C – Test Results: Physical Properties Test Method Unit Description Result Comment EN 12616 mm/h falling head infiltration test > 3,000 metric ASTM D3385 in”/h falling head infiltration test > 100 imperial EN 12230 N / mm tensile strength – MD 32 metric tensile strength - CD 40 metric ASTM D5034-09 lbs grab tear – MD 286 imperial grab tear - CD 401 imperial ISO 4919 N tuft bind 45 metric – target 30 N tuft bind after water age 44 metric – target 30 % % change 97 > 75 % ASTM D1335 lbs tuft bind 10.2 imperial EN 13746 % shrinkage (water, frost & heat) < 0.05 requirement < 1 % % extension (water, frost & heat) < 0.05 TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 8 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix D – Test Results: Chemical Test Method Unit Description Result Comment EN 12457-4 / ISO 11885 mg / kg compliance test for leaching - metals lead (Pb) < 0.005 cadmium (Cd) < 0.001 chromium (Cr) < 0.002 tin (Sn) < 0.005 zinc < 0.005 DOC < 0.001 mercury (Hg) < 0.00001 none-detectable ASTM F2765-14 ppm total lead content in synthetic turf fibres > 100 none-detectable DIN 38414-17 mg / kg extractable organic halides (EOX) < 20 none-detectable allowable limit is < 100 mg/kg Annex XVII No 1907/2006 mg / kg PAHs (polycyclic- aromatic hydrocarbons) < 0.2 for each 18 PAHs none-detectable allowable limits is < 20 mg/kg GLI Procedure E9-1/E9-3 PPM PFAS a09: Fluoride < 0.5 ppm F: Fluorine < 10 ppm r19: Organic Fluorine < 10 ppm None-detectable Notes: Test values often are not reported as zero the test method is only accurate enough to stipulate a ‘less than’ result. This value can be different for each specific substance or test method. TenCate Pivot™ has been declared complaint with requirements of REACH within the European Union and EPA / Prop 65 criteria in the United States. TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 9 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix D – Test Results: Performance Test Method (unit) Sample Conditioning FIFA Quality Range Surface Combination TenCate Pivot™ (no pad) TenCate Pivot™ GeoFlo (15 mm) TenCate Pivot™ GeoFlo+ (15 mm) TenCate Pivot™ GeoFlo+ (20 mm) AAA (%) Shock Absorbency EN 14808 FIFA TM004A ASTM F3189/F2569 Dry 55 to 70 58 61 63 66 Wet 58 62 64 67 50°C 59 62 65 68 -5°C 57 60 63 64 LISport Wear Classic 56 61 64 65 LISport Wear XL 57 61 63 65 AAA (mm) Vertical Deformation EN 14809 FIFA TM005A ASTM F3189/F2157 Dry 4 to 11 8.1 8.5 9.3 9.5 Wet 8.2 8.6 9.4 9.6 50°C 8.3 8.5 9.5 9.7 -5°C 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.5 LISport Wear Classic 8.0 8.4 9.3 9.9 LISport Wear XL 8.0 8.3 9.2 10.0 AAA (%) Energy Restitution FIFA TM013 Dry 20 to 50 (not pass/fail) 32 31 29 28 Wet 32 30 28 27 50°C 33 32 29 27 -5°C 32 32 30 26 LISport Wear Classic 35 34 30 29 LISport Wear XL 35 33 31 29 Rotational Resistance (Nm) Grip EN 15301-1 FIFA TM006 ASTM F1551 Dry 25 to 50 32 Wet 30 50°C 31 -5°C 30 LISport Wear Classic 38 LISport Wear XL 39 Impact Attenuation Gmax (g) ASTM F355-A Dry n/a FIFA < 200 ASTM < 165 STC < 150 NFL 137 98 84 77 Wet 139 99 82 75 50°C 139 98 78 77 -5°C 141 100 86 78 LISport Wear Classic 142 99 85 81 LISport Wear XL 144 101 86 83 Critical Fall Height HIC (m) EN 1177 ASTM F355-E Dry n/a FIFA ³ 1.3 WR 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Wet 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 50°C 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 -5°C 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 LISport Wear Classic 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 LISport Wear XL 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Ball Rebound Height (m) EN 12235 FIFA TM001 ASTM F1551 Dry 0.6 to 1.0 0.71 0.67 0.67 0.68 Wet 0.72 0.66 0.69 0.70 50°C 0.73 0.69 0.71 0.72 -5°C 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 LISport Wear Classic 0.76 0.73 0.72 0.73 LISport Wear XL 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.72 Ball Roll Distance (m) EN 12234 FIFA TM003 Dry 4 to 10 6.5 Wet 6.8 LISport Wear XL 7.9 TECHNICAL REPORT Report Number CTI.23-097B Page 10 of 10 Date December 19th, 2023 This information is confidential and was prepared by TenCate solely for the use of our client; it is not to be relied on by any 3rd party without TenCate prior written consent. © TenCate - Center for Turf Innovation Appendix E – Pivot™ Product Photographs Outlook Fwd: Public Comment: Additional Misrepresentation of Scientific Studies in Cornell’s Submission on Synthetic Turf From Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:47 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, As a follow-up to my earlier message, I’m forwarding additional materials that were previously submitted to the Town Planning Board regarding Cornell’s synthetic turf project on Game Farm Road. We ask that these items also be entered into the official record for the Zoning Board and given full consideration as part of your review process. Thank you again for your time and attention. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if clarification is needed. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date: Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:25 AM Subject: Public Comment: Additional Misrepresentation of Scientific Studies in Cornell’s Submission on Synthetic Turf To: <planning@townithacany.gov> Cc: <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, I am writing to address a serious misrepresentation in Cornell University’s Supplemental Materials Submission dated Februar y 21, 2025, specifically on page 8. Cornell falsely presents the Siegel et al. (2024) study and the U.S. EPA FRAP 2 (2024) study as “companion studies” in an apparent attempt to undermine the findings of Siegel et al. by misrepresenting the EPA study. This misleading framing falsely suggests that the studies are directly related or that the EPA study negates the serious concerns raised in Siegel’s research. These studies are not connected in authorship, methodology, or findings: The Siegel et al. (2024) study examines the toxicological effects of artificial turf materials, finding that weathered tur f samples increased bioactivity on hormone receptors linked to endocrine and cardiometabolic disruption. This raises significant concerns about synthetic turf’s potential health risks. The EPA FRAP 2 (2024) study is an exposure characterization study, assessing how athletes come into contact with chemicals from synthetic turf but explicitly avoiding any toxicological or health risk assessment. It confirms that players are exposed to hazardous substances, particularly in indoor settings, but does not evaluate long-term health effects. Cornell’s submission misrepresents the EPA study in two ways: 1. By falsely linking it to Siegel et al. as though the studies are complementary. In reality, FRAP 2 does not assess toxicity, while Siegel et al. does. 2. By implying that FRAP 2 dismisses concerns about synthetic tur f toxicity, when in fact, the study acknowledges exposure risks but does not investigate their health consequences. This is an attempt to downplay the Siegel study’s findings, which raise serious questions about the endocrine-disrupting and cardiometabolic toxicity of synthetic turf materials. The Planning Board should reject this misleading framing and demand a scientifically accurate and transparent evaluation of synthetic turf’s risks. I respectfully request that this letter be added into the record together with my earlier submission today, calling for the recall of the negative declaration for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). That letter included Siegel et al. (2024) and urged board members to closely examine its findings. This is part of an ongoing pattern of scientific misrepresentation by Cornell University, which we have repeatedly raised concerns about in public comments throughout this process. Despite these efforts, the board ignored our warnings and proceeded to issue a negative declaration unanimously last night. This failure to engage with the scientific evidence is unacceptable and undermines public trust in the decision-making process. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org References: Siegel, Kyle R., Brooklynn R. Murray, Jeff Gearhart, and Christopher D. Kassotis. "In Vitro Endocrine and Cardiometabolic Toxicity Associated with Artificial Turf Materials." Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. September 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104562 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668924002023 This study examines the potential health risks of artificial turf materials, analyzing both new and weathered samples. The findings indicate that weathered turf samples had stronger effects on various hormone receptors, including androgen, estrogen, and thyroid receptors. Additionally, all turf extracts activated a receptor linked to toxin processing (AhR), with some causing heart cell toxicity in rats. These results raise concerns about the endocrine and cardiometabolic effects of artificial turf materials, warranting further investigation into their impact on human health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Synthetic Turf Field Recycled Tire Crumb Rubber Research Under the Federal Research Action Plan: Final Report, Part 2 – Exposure Characterization, Volumes 1 and 2. EPA/600/R-24/044, April 2024. https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/tire-crumb-exposure-characterization-report-volumes-1- and-2. This follow-up study known as known as FRAP (Federal Research Action Plan) 2 assesses human exposure to chemicals in synthetic turf fields through inhalation, dermal contact, and ingestion. Findings confirm that players are exposed to hazardous substances, particularly in indoor environments, though the report does not conduct a full health risk assessment. Outlook Fwd: Formal Complaint Regarding March 4th Town Planning Board Meeting From Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:49 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> 1 attachment (11 MB) Petaluma.pdf; Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, As a follow-up to my earlier message, I’m forwarding additional materials that were previously submitted to the Town Planning Board regarding Cornell’s synthetic turf project on Game Farm Road. We ask that these items also be entered into the official record for the Zoning Board and given full consideration as part of your review process. Thank you again for your time and attention. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if clarification is needed. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> Date: Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:00 AM Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding March 4th Town Planning Board Meeting To: <planning@townithacany.gov> Cc: <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, We are writing to formally file a complaint regarding the handling of public participation at the Town Planning Board meeting on March 4th, where Cornell University President Michael Kotlikoff, Chemist Brett P. Fors, field hockey parents, field hockey players, alumni, and the athletic director attended and spoke against Zero Waste Ithaca’s submissions. It is important for us to understand why Cornell’s President and affiliates were present at the meeting, especially given that we were informed by a Town Planning Board staff member that it was unclear whether we would be allowed to speak. As we understand it, the "Persons to be Heard" section is typically reserved for public comments unrelated to agenda items, and Cornell’s synthetic turf project was on the agenda that evening—yet, no public hearing was scheduled. When we inquired about whether we would have an opportunity to speak, we were told it was uncertain. Given this, we invited others but had to make clear that we might not be able to speak, out of respect for their time, since we could not be sure we would be permitted to address the Board. Yet, on March 4th, Cornell brought a significant number of representatives, including high-ranking officials and students, who were able to speak at the meeting. We would like to understand how and why this was possible, and why this level of participation was seemingly coordinated when it was unclear if members of the public would be allowed to speak. We request that this email be entered into the public record as a formal protest regarding the handling of public participation at the meeting. Furthermore, because these correspondences pertain directly to procedural fairness and transparency regarding the Negative Declaration (Neg Dec), we request that the Town Planning Board proactively disclose any existing relevant records now, prior to finalizing the Neg Dec, to ensure a complete and accurate record of the decision-making process. Additionally, I'm attaching Safe Healthy Playing Fields' public comment submitted to the City of Petaluma, CA, as it contains relevant information and links to sources regarding TenCate. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org P.S.: We are filing a separate FOIL request for email correspondences and records related to the March 4th meeting between Town Planning Board members, staff, and Cornell University representatives. Subject: TenCate’s Synthetic Turf: Pesticide Use, Microplastic Pollution, and ExxonMobil Ties Contradict Cornell’s Sustainability Claims Dear Town Planning Board Members, Cornell University has selected TenCate as the manufacturer for its planned “PFAS-free” synthetic turf field on Game Farm Road. However, the university’s claims of environmental sustainability are contradicted by TenCate’s own maintenance guidelines and troubling industry practices. First, despite Cornell’s repeated assertions that synthetic turf eliminates the need for herbicides, TenCate’s 2024 Maintenance Manual explicitly allows only the use of Spectracide and Roundup—both known carcinogens—for weed control. This directly contradicts statements made by Cornell chemist Brett P. Fors at the March 4, 2025, Town Planning Board meeting, where he falsely claimed that synthetic turf requires no pesticides. The manufacturer ’s own documentation proves otherwise. See Page 15 of the manual of “Approved System Components.” Second, TenCate’s artificial turf is demonstrably prone to fragmentation, releasing microplastics into the environment. A video recorded on February 4, 2025, by Pamela Bond in San Jose, California, shows TenCate’s Pivot synthetic turf failing within just three months of installation. Turf blades were visibly breaking down, shedding microplastic fibers into the environment—undermining industry claims that synthetic turf prevents pollution. Third, TenCate’s partnership with ExxonMobil further exposes the company’s role in environmental harm. TenCate sends used synthetic turf to ExxonMobil’s Baytown, Texas, facility for so-called 'advanced recycling' (i.e., pyrolysis), a process widely criticized for inefficiency, high emissions, and environmental justice concerns. As documented by Dr. Neil Carman in his June 25, 2024, letter to the City of Ithaca Planning Board, communities near Exxon’s Baytown complex have been fighting toxic pollution for decades. The addition of synthetic turf waste processing only exacerbates the environmental burden on these already overburdened communities. Additionally, TenCate’s home country, the Netherlands, is moving away from artificial turf, as evidenced by the Eredivisie’s decision to ban synthetic turf starting in the 2025–26 season. This marks a major shift in Dutch professional football, where all clubs in the Eredivisie and Keuken Kampioen Divisie will be required to play on natural grass or hybrid pitches. The decision, made unanimously by the leagues, is the result of a long-term transition that began in 2018 and aligns with broader European efforts to phase out artificial turf. As a Dutch-based company, TenCate now finds its own country rejecting the very product it promotes, signaling a growing recognition of artificial turf ’s drawbacks, including concerns over player safety, environmental impact, and game quality. Cornell’s selection of TenCate as a synthetic turf supplier raises serious concerns: ● No independent PFAS testing has been conducted on TenCate’s products under full public oversight. ● TenCate’s own manual permits herbicide use, refuting Cornell’s pesticide-free claims. ● Documented premature degradation of TenCate turf contradicts industry promises about durability and environmental safety. ● TenCate’s involvement with ExxonMobil’s chemical recycling scheme ties Cornell’s project to a deeply flawed and polluting industry practice. The evidence is clear: Cornell’s claims about synthetic turf sustainability are misleading. The university cannot ignore the environmental and public health consequences of choosing TenCate as its turf supplier. Sincerely, Analyse Adams Food & Water Watch Volunteer References: ● Pamela Bond, John Mise Park, San Jose, CA: TenCate Pivot Turf Failure (Video, February 4, 2025). A video shared by a grassroots activist in California. https://share.icloud.com/photos/06b1nGfaanJ6PyjxN0sXMdtNQ ● Dr. Neil Carman, Letter to the City of Ithaca Planning Board, June 25, 2024. https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Hjoae7HMpXo3ueK92Auq71sJXXhsDUT/view?usp=sharing ● TenCate Americas, TenCate Pivot 2024 Maintenance Manual V1 (Dayton, TN: TenCate Americas, 2024). https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/povlnuhbuh5qy1lbjq5jx/TenCate-Pivot-2024-Maintenance-Manu al-V1.pdf?rlkey=ui10g16wenrdrjgy05rpyeidk&st=5l74l8dw&dl=0 ● Alexander H. Tullo, "ExxonMobil Will Recycle Synthetic Turf," Chemical & Engineering News, October 1, 2022. https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/ExxonMobil-recycle-synthetic-turf/100/i35 ● James Bruggers, “In Houston, a City Council Member Questions ‘Advanced’ Recycling of Plastic and a City Collaboration with ExxonMobil.” Inside Climate News. December 13, 2024. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13122024/houston-city-council-member-questions-exxonmob il-plastic-recycling/ ● Eredivisie. "No More Artificial Turf in the Eredivisie from the 2025-26 Season." Eredivisie, May 28, 2024. https://eredivisie.eu/news/no-more-artificial-turf-in-the-eredivisie-from-the-2025-26-season/. Outlook Fwd: Public Comment: Protecting Bird and Wildlife Habitat from Synthetic Turf at Game Farm Road From Zero Waste Ithaca <info@zerowasteithaca.org> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:56 PM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> 1 attachment (7 MB) Wildlife GFR Site 3 18 2025.pdf; Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, I believe the following public comment for the Game Farm Road Site project is also in your interest. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Amina Mohamed <am2565@cornell.edu> Date: Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 11:47 AM Subject: Public Comment: Protecting Bird and Wildlife Habitat from Synthetic Turf at Game Farm Road To: <planning@townithacany.gov>, <pbstaff@cityofithaca.org> Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board members, Please find the attached public comment for the Game Farm Road synthetic turf project. Thank you, Amina Subject: Public Comment: Protecting Bird and WildlifeHabitat from Synthetic Turf at Game Farm Road Dear Members of the Town Planning Board, I am writing to express my concern regarding the planned installation of synthetic turf at multiple locations in the Game Farm Road area. Recent observations have revealed this area to be a critical habitat for various raptor species, including Red-tailed Hawks, Northern Harriers, Rough-legged Hawks, Sharp-shinned Hawks, Cooper's Hawks, and Merlins. These birds rely on the existing natural grasslands and semi-natural cover as a critical hunting ground, preying on small mammals and birds that depend on the current ecosystem. Scientific studies highlight the negative ecological impacts of artificial turf, particularly on avian diversity. Research such as Sánchez-Sotomayor et al. (2022) published in Bird Conservation International demonstrates that replacing natural grass with synthetic alternatives leads to a significant decline in bird species richness, abundance, and overall biodiversity. Although much of the research focuses on urban bird populations, the fundamental ecological principles apply to raptors as well: the loss of natural habitat and associated food sources can lead to a decline in these apex predators. Cornell University in their Supplemental Materials Submission on January 31, 2025 falsely claims on page 8 and 9 that the Game Farm Road site is not a habitat for threatened or endangered species. The following raptor species observed in the Game Farm Road area will likely be affected, of which three of them - Northern Harriers, Sharp-Shinned Hawks, and Cooker ’s Hawks - are listed as Species of Special Concern or of Greatest Conservation Need and Threatened in New York State: ● Red-tailed Hawks hunt from perches or while soaring, capturing prey such as small mammals and birds primarily on the ground. ● Northern Harriers rely on both vision and hearing to locate small mammals in open fields. This species is listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need and Threatened in New York State. ● Rough-legged Hawks hover and scan open terrain for rodents and other small animals. ● Sharp-shinned Hawks and Cooper's Hawks specialize in hunting small birds in semi-natural cover. Both species are classified as Species of Special Concern in New York State, meaning they are at risk of becoming threatened or endangered without continued protective measures. ● Merlins are small falcons that prey on songbirds, which rely on a healthy, biodiverse environment. Northern Harrier Sharp-Shinned Hawk Cooper ’s Hawk Furthermore, the latest agenda packet for 3/18/25 meeting revealed the Three Birds Orchid (triphora trianthophoros), a threatened species in NY, VT, ME, NH and endangered In MA, extirpated in CT, was identified as potentially inhabiting the project area. The applicant, Cornell University, asserts that the Three Birds Orchid is unlikely to inhabit the project site because it requires beech forest, which they claim is absent. However, this assertion seems an oversimplification and not entirely accurate. While the orchid thrives in moist, mature deciduous woodlands, particularly beech-maple forests, it is not strictly limited to them. The species also occurs in other deciduous forest types that provide deep leaf litter, well-drained organic-rich soils, and minimal competing vegetation. Additionally, the orchid's presence is heavily dependent on specific mycorrhizal fungi, which are not exclusive to beech forests. The applicant’s dismissal of habitat suitability based solely on the absence of beech trees fails to account for these broader ecological requirements. A comprehensive field survey including adjacent forests by an independent ecologist is necessary to determine whether the project site may, in fact, support the species rather than relying on an unverified claim. Three Birds Orchid Replacing natural grass with synthetic turf, parking paving and other developments disrupts this ecosystem by eliminating vital prey species for raptors such as rodents, insects, and small birds. The implications extend beyond these birds of prey, affecting the entire local food web. Additionally, synthetic turf and other development creates an unnatural, sterile environment that lacks the soil-dwelling organisms necessary for maintaining biodiversity. Research such as Bernat-Ponce et al. (2020) has shown that replacing semi-natural cover with artificial surfaces reduces habitat suitability and trophic resources, leading to declines in bird populations. Furthermore, Khalid et al. (2020) highlight how microplastics from artificial surfaces disrupt soil ecosystems, altering nutrient cycling and affecting plant growth, which in turn impacts insect populations that serve as prey for many bird species. (Note: Khalid et al. is conveniently dismissed as irrelevant study by Cornell University among many others in Zero Waste Ithaca’s bibliography in Cornell University’s submissions). Recent research has further demonstrated the risks that synthetic materials pose to avian species. Tokunaga et al. (2023) found polypropylene, polyethylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate microplastics in the lungs of wild birds in Japan, providing direct evidence that birds inhale airborne microplastics. These same plastics are major components of synthetic turf, yet Cornell dismisses this study as irrelevant because it does not specifically focus on synthetic turf fields. This argument ignores the well-documented shedding of synthetic fibers from artificial turf blades and other turf system components due to wear and weathering, which can lead to inhalation and ingestion by birds and other wildlife. While polypropylene, polyethylene, and EVA microplastics may come from multiple sources, synthetic turf is a known contributor to microplastic pollution through abrasion, runoff, and atmospheric dispersion. Given that raptors like Northern Harriers and Cooper ’s Hawks hunt in open fields, they are particularly vulnerable to airborne contaminants that accumulate in their hunting grounds. Dismissing this research disregards the broader implications of synthetic turf ’s environmental impact on avian species. Cornell's claim that there are "100 acres of natural space" surrounding the project site (February 21, 2025 Supplemental Materials submission, p. 8) deliberately obscures the broader context: Cornell plans to develop the entire site with additional synthetic turf fields, parking lots, and artificial structures. The current piecemeal approach to approvals allows Cornell to evade a full Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) by avoiding comprehensive scrutiny for the entire project around the site. Rather than developing all projects at once potentially causing controversy, Cornell has strategically started development away from residential areas, incrementally expanding synthetic surfaces while minimizing opposition at each phase. The synthetic turf baseball field in the middle of the area was first, and now the northernmost site on Game Farm Road is being targeted for the field hockey field. The long-term plan for additional artificial turf, increased pavement, more lighting, and increased vehicular activity will introduce noise pollution, light pollution, runoff contamination, and trash and litter accumulation, all of which negatively impact wildlife beyond the immediate site. It is also important to note that turf blades backing and shock pads are all sources of microplastic and PFAS pollution. On that note, we noticed Cornell’s submissions conveniently omitted Whitehead’s 2023 study, a full Ph.D. dissertation, which provides critical evidence of PFAS contamination in artificial turf blades, analyzing 27 samples using multiple methods. PFAS were detected in all samples, with a median concentration of 5.1 ng/g and a maximum of 41.7 ng/g, while organic fluorine measurements indicated the presence of fluorinated polymer processing aids. Cornell instead cites and misrepresents Lauria et al.’s 2022 study, whose result Whtiehead discusses in her dissertation. This is a subject for another comment, but is yet another clear example of how Cornell University selectively reads and misrepresents studies from Zero Waste Ithaca’s bibliography. The sources referenced above are just a few examples of the extensive research available in the carefully curated bibliography, which includes peer-reviewed literature on the environmental impacts of synthetic turf. The ongoing pattern of misrepresentations of the studies and our submissions is a great concern. Planning board members are strongly urged to consult the original submissions and sources in our bibliography directly before making decisions based on misrepresentations. Given the strong scientific evidence indicating the detrimental effects of synthetic turf on bird populations and broader ecosystems, we urge the Town Planning Board to reconsider this proposal and prioritize conservation-minded alternatives – a call on GEIS. Maintaining natural grass and investing in habitat preservation aligns with the broader goal of protecting biodiversity and ensuring that species such as those listed above continue to thrive in the Game Farm Road area. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Amina Mohamed Ph.D. Candidate Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Cornell University References: Audubon Center New York. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): Guidance for Conservation. Accessed March 10, 2025. https://greenelandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Audubon-Northern_Harrier.pdf. This document provides conservation guidance for the Northern Harrier, which is listed as a Threatened species in New York State. It details the species' habitat preferences, hunting behavior, and nesting habits, emphasizing its reliance on open grasslands and wetland areas. The resource highlights ongoing conservation efforts and the importance of maintaining suitable environments for this raptor ’s survival. Bernat-Ponce, Edgar, José A. Gil-Delgado, and Germán M. López-Iborra. "Replacement of Semi-Natural Cover with Artificial Substrates in Urban Parks Causes a Decline of House Sparrows Passer Domesticus in Mediterranean Towns." Urban Ecosystems 23, no. 3 (2020): 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00931-w. This study investigates the effects of urban park remodelling, specifically replacing semi-natural substrates with artificial surfaces, on the abundance of House Sparrows in Mediterranean towns. Results show that such remodelling reduces habitat suitability and trophic (nutrition or feeding) resources, leading to a significant decline in sparrow populations, emphasizing the need for urban planning measures to preserve biodiversity. Cayuga Bird Club. “Reynolds Game Farm.” Accessed March 10, 2025. https://sites.google.com/site/cbc14850/where-to-bird/reynolds-game-farm . This webpage provides an overview of the Reynolds Game Farm, highlighting its role as a habitat for various raptor species, including Red-tailed Hawks, Northern Harriers, Rough-legged Hawks, Sharp-shinned Hawks, Cooper's Hawks, and Merlins. Notably, the Northern Harrier is classified as Threatened in New York State, and both the Sharp-shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk are designated as Species of Special Concern. The site has historically hosted high concentrations of Red-tailed Hawks and continues to support diverse raptor populations. This source is valuable in documenting the ecological significance of the area and reinforcing concerns about the impact of synthetic turf development on protected and at-risk species. Khalid, Noreen, Muhammad Aqeel, and Ali Noman. "Microplastics Could Be a Threat to Plants in Terrestrial Systems Directly or Indirectly." Environmental Pollution 267 (December 2020): 115653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115653.This review examines the potential threats posed by microplastics (MPs) to terrestrial ecosystems, focusing on their impacts on soil and plants. It highlights how MPs alter soil physicochemical properties, affect plant community composition, and potentially create toxicity through root uptake. The study also explores how MPs disrupt nutrient cycling and the soil's carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, emphasizing their long-term environmental risks. The authors stress the limited understanding of MPs in terrestrial systems and call for further research to address these gaps, particularly regarding their effects on ecosystem functioning and biota. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. "Rare Plant Profile: Triphora trianthophoros (Three Birds Orchid)." April 2022. https://www.nj.gov/dep/parksandforests/natural/heritage/docs/triphora-trianthophoros-thr ee-birds-orchid.pdf. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. “List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish and Wildlife Species of New York State.” Accessed March 10, 2025. https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7494.html. This webpage provides an official listing of endangered, threatened, and special concern species in New York State. It identifies the Northern Harrier as a Threatened species and the Sharp-shinned Hawk and Cooper ’s Hawk as Species of Special Concern. The resource is valuable for understanding the legal protections afforded to wildlife at risk and their conservation status within the state. Ramstetter, Jennifer M. Triphora trianthophora (Swartz) Rydb. (Three-birds Orchid) Conservation and Research Plan. New England Wild Flower Society, May 2001. https://newfs-society.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Triphoratrianthophora.pdf. Sánchez-Sotomayor D, Martín-Higuera A, Gil-Delgado JA, Gálvez Á, Bernat-Ponce E. “Artificial Grass in Parks as a Potential New Threat for Urban Bird Communities.” Bird Conservation International. Cambridge University Press, July 26, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959270922000119 This study demonstrates that replacing natural grass with artificial turf in urban parks in eastern Spain negatively impacted bird diversity. Parks with artificial grass show reduced species richness, abundance, and gamma diversity compared to parks with natural grass. These findings highlight the harmful effects of artificial turf on urban bird communities and its threat to bird conservation. Tokunaga, Yurika, Hiroshi Okochi, Yuto Tani, Yasuhiro Niida, Toshio Tachibana, Kazuo Saigawa, Kinya Katayama, Sachiko Moriguchi, Takuya Kato, and Shin-ichi Hayama. "Airborne Microplastics Detected in the Lungs of Wild Birds in Japan." Chemosphere 321 (April 2023): 138032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138032. This study revealed the presence of airborne microplastics (AMPs) in the lungs of wild birds in Japan using µFTIR spectroscopy, marking the first evidence of AMP inhalation in avian species. Common polymers such as polypropylene, polyethylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate were found in the lungs, emphasizing the dual exposure risk of ingestion and inhalation for birds in polluted environments. Wang, M., Zhou, P., DuBay, S., Zhang, S., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Cao, Y., Hu, Z., He, X., Wang, S., Li, M., Fan, C., Zou, B., Zhou, C., and Wu, Y. “Assessing Microplastic and Nanoplastic Contamination in Bird Lungs: Evidence of Ecological Risks and Bioindicator Potential.” Journal of Hazardous Materials 487. April 5, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.137274. This study provides evidence of airborne microplastic (MNP) contamination in the lungs of birds, demonstrating the pervasive nature of MNP pollution and its ecological risks. The research analyzed 51 bird species, finding microplastics in every lung sample tested, with an average of 416.22 MP particles per gram of lung tissue. The detection of both microplastics (MPs) and nanoplastics (NPs) underscores the scale of airborne plastic pollution and its potential impact on respiratory health. Larger-bodied, terrestrial, and carnivorous birds exhibited higher plastic burdens, indicating that ecological traits influence exposure levels. Whitehead, Heather D. Development of Analytical Methods for Highly Selective and Sensitive Analysis of Compounds Relevant to Human Health and the Environment. PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2023. https://curate.nd.edu/articles/thesis/Development_of_Analytical_Methods_for_Highly_Se lective_and_Sensitive_Analysis_of_Compounds_Relevant_to_Human_Health_and_the_ Environment/24869502?file=43760148. Dropbox full pdf backup: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/73xaku3dwi0jjtgamnoe3/WhiteheadHD042023D-1.pdf?r lkey=y871tnevcqk4r0kwlzd42qhke&st=ioc6xn65&dl=0. This dissertation provides critical evidence of PFAS contamination in artificial turf blades, analyzing 27 samples using multiple methods. PFAS were detected in all samples, with a median concentration of 5.1 ng/g and a maximum of 41.7 ng/g, while organic fluorine measurements indicated the presence of fluorinated polymer processing aids. These findings confirm that PFAS are embedded in synthetic turf materials, raising concerns about long-term environmental and human exposure risks. Woelke, Dianne. Public Comment to The Town of Ithaca, NY, Planning Board. Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc., March 4, 2025. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aapcjpmjg2i2z0hqcalbz/Dianne-Woelke-Cornell-4-Mar-2 025.pdf?rlkey=chlldd7nj6ikchjlne2m2v5ac&st=dlwr0wk5&dl=0 This document, prepared by Safe Healthy Playing Fields, Inc., presents arguments in favor of a full environmental review for the Cornell GFR Hockey Field project. It highlights concerns regarding synthetic turf, including its environmental, health, and financial impacts. The report cites various studies on microplastic pollution, toxic runoff, and the presence of harmful chemicals in artificial turf. It also discusses legal and regulatory considerations, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability from Cornell University. -: : .- . - :• . -. ; ‘ c: j . . i - J I. . =- .: Q . : E: : 2a : •E=C ’ ) L LL J 3 I = C/ ) =‘ ) S — Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 -Project and Setting Instructions for Completing Part 1 Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor.Responses become part ofthe 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;indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to update or fully develop that information. Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A &B.In Sections C,D &E,most items contain an initial question that must be answered either “Yes”or “No”.If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”,complete the sub-questions that follow.If the answer to the initial question is “No”,proceed to the next question.Section F allows the project sponsor to identif,’and attach any additional information.Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part us accurate and complete. A.Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information. Name ofAction or Project: Cornell Field Hockey field Project Location (describe,and attach a general location map): On the west side of Game Farm Road,between the road and McGovern Fields;Town Parcel #62-2-6 and #62-2-5 ,and #62-2-4 Brief Description ofProposed Action (include purpose or need): Cornell University is proposing to construct facilities for varsity field hockey at their Game Farm Road lands utilized for athletics.Construction of the project is proposed in two phases.Phase one will provide Cornell’s field hockey athletes with a NCAA-compliant synthetic turf field.The field is proposed on the site of an existing grass athletic field next to two improved grass soccer fields known as McGovern Fields.Phase one will include a field hockey pitch,a new driveway,formalized parking,pedestrian amenities,and small support facilities.The support facilities include a four-restroom building and a press box building. Phase two,which involves an additional building,is anticipated to move forward within five years of the athletic field installation.The proposed building will be a single-story clubhouse facility to serve the field hockey team.The clubhouse will include team locker rooms,offices,meeting rooms,a physical therapy/training room,a lounge,toilets, showers,and an indoor training space.The indoor training space will have a synthetic turf floor surface that matches the turf used for the exterior field hockey field and will be used for field hockey practice during inclement weather. The proposed septic system,storm water management system,and electrical transformer included in the Phase one construction will be sized to accommodate the needs of the future clubhouse.The enclosed documents and FEAF address the full project buildout (Phases one and two). Name of Applicant/Sponsor:Telephone:607.227.1400 Kimberly Van Leeuwen E-Mail:kmichaels@fisherassoc.com Address:Seneca Street,Suite 201 City/PO:Ithaca State:NY Zip Code:14850 Project Contact (ifnot same as sponsor;give name and title/role):Telephone:607.255.2478 Elisabete Godden,Project Manager E-Mail:egoddencornell.edu Address: 102 Humphries Service Building City/PO:State:Zip Code: Ithaca NY 14853 Property Owner (if not same as sponsor):Telephone: Cornell University E-Mail: Address: City/PO:Ithaca State:Zip Code:14850 NY Page 1 of 13 FEAF 2019 B.Government Approvals B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship.(“Funding”includes grants,loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial assistance.) Government Entity IfYes:Identify Agency and Approval(s)Application Date Required (Actual or projected) a.City Council,Town Board,IYesDNo Town Board:Sewer Exemption or_Village_Board_of Trustees b.City,Town or Village IYesNo Town Planning Board:SEQR,Site Plan Approval,1013/2024PlanningBoardorCommissionSpecialUsePermit c.City,Town or IYesNo ZBA:Variance(s)3/10/2025VillageZoningBoardofAppeals — d.Other local agencies DYes No e.County agencies YesDNo CHD Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWT )TC OWTS Permit TBDConstructionPermit;TC GML 239 Review/Referral TC-gMCIetter received 11126/2024 f.Regional agencies QYesNo g.State agencies IYesDNo NYSDEC:Stormwater Permit;SPDES Permit TBD h.Federal agencies IEIYesNo i.Coastal Resources. I.Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway?DYes INo ii.Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? iii.Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area?D YesNo C.Planning and Zoning c.1.Planning and zoning actions. Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment ofa plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the DYesNo only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed? .IfYes,complete sections C,F and G. .If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1 C.2.Adopted land use plans. a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site YesDNo where the proposed action would be located? IfYes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action YesDNo would be located?(Future Land Use designation is “campus”) b.Is the site ofthe proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example:Greenway;DYesNo Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan; or other?). If Yes,identify the plan(s): c.Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan,DYes No or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan? If Yes,identify the plan(s): Page 2 of 13 C.3.Zoning a.Is the site ofthe proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance.YesNo IfYes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district? LDR -Low Density Residential b.Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit?YesNo c.Is a zoning change requested as part ofthe proposed action?DYesNo If Yes, I.What is the proposed new zoning for the site? C.4.Existing community services. a.In what school district is the project site located?Ithaca City School District b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? Cornell Campus Police.Tompkins County Sheriff c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site? Ithaca Fire Department,Bangs Ambulance d.What parks serve the project site? East Hill Recreation Way D.Project Details D.1.Proposed and Potential Development a.What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed,include all components)?Recreational -Field Hockey Field b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?1>(5 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed?12.22 acres c.Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?506 acres c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use?Yes No i.IfYes,what is the approximate percentage ofthe proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g.,acres,miles,housing units, square feet)?% ______________________ Units: ______________________ d.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision?DYes INo If Yes, i.Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types) ii.Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed?DYes INo iii.Number of lots proposed? ________ iv.Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes?Minimum .Maximum __________ e.Will the proposed action be constructed in multiple phases?YesCNo i.IfNo,anticipated period ofconstruction: _____ months ii.If Yes: .Total number ofphases anticipated 2 .Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition)3 month 2025 year .Anticipated completion date of final phase tbd month tbd year •Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases:It is anticipated that within five years,the phase two building could move forward. If so,it would likely take 12-18 months to complete.The infrastructure proposed for phase I is sized to accommodate phase II. Page 3 of 13 f.Does the project include new residential uses?QYesNo IfYes,show numbers ofunits proposed. Qll Family IQ Family Iç Family Multiple Family or Initial Phase ________________________________________________________________ At completion of all phases ______________________________________________________________ g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)?YesQNo If Yes, i.Total number of structures 3 ii.Dimensions (in feet)oflargest proposed structure:20-0”height;97-0’width;and 165-0’length iii.Approximate extent ofbuilding space to be heated or cooled:14,400 square feet h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any Yes No liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond,lake,waste lagoon or other storage? IfYes,Project does NOT include an “impoundment”per NYS DEC definition,just standard stormwater managem cilities i.Purpose of the impoundment:Stormwater detention and treatment ii.If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water:Q Ground water Surface water streams flOther specify: N/A iii.If other than water,identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source. N/A iv.Approximate size of the proposed impoundment.Volume:I .0 million gallons;surface area:0.72 acres V.Dimensions ofthe proposed dam or impounding structure:514 height;375’length vi.Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete): Traditional construction techniques associated with the installation of a compacted earth fill embankment for stormwater mitigation D.2.Project Operations a.Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both?OYesNo (Not including general site preparation,grading or installation ofutilities or foundations where all excavated materials will remain onsite) If Yes: i What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? ________________________________________________________________ ii.How much material (including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site? .Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ________________________________________________ .Over what duration of time? ________________________________________________________ iii.Describe nature and characteristics ofmaterials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them. iv.Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials?OYesüNo Ifyes,describe. _________________________________________________ V.What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _________________________________________acres vi.What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? __________________________________ acres vii.What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feet viii.Will the excavation require blasting?YesONo ix.Summarize site reclamation goals and plan:. b.Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment YesNo into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area? If Yes: i.Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic description): Page 4 of 13 ii.Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures,or alteration of channels,banks and shorelines.Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres: iii.Will the proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments?EYes QNo IfYes,describe: iv.Will the proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation?L1 YesCNo If Yes: .acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed: ______________________________________________________________ .expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:____________________________________________ .purpose ofproposed removal (e.g.beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access): ______________________________ .proposed method ofplant removal: _________________________________________________________________________ .if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s): _______________________________________________________ V.Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: ____________________________________________________ c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water?Yes JNo If Yes: I.Total anticipated water usage/demand per day:950 Domestic consumption only)gallons/day ii.Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply?Yes LJNo If Yes: •Name of district or service area:Cornell University Water System (NYSDEC Permit #:7-5030-00008/00007) •Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal?I Yes No •Is the project site in the existing district?I YesD No •Is expansion of the district needed?L1 Yes No •Do existing lines serve the project site?I YesC No iii.Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project?Yes IJNo If Yes: •Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: _____________________________________________ A new 8”HDPE water main will be connected to the existing system located atthe McGovern Soccer Building and extended to the project. •Source(s)of supply for the district:Fall Creek via the Cornell University Water Filtration Plant iv.Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site?Q YesNo If,Yes: •Applicant/sponsor for new district:N/A •Date application submitted or anticipated:N/A •Proposed source(s)of supply for new district:N/A V.If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project: _____________________________ A public water supply will be used for the proposed project. vi.Ifwater supply will be from wells (public or private),what is the maximum pumping capacity:N/A gallons/minute. d.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes?IZI Yes DNo If Yes: 1.Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day:950 gallons/day ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial;if combination,describe all components and approximate volumes or proportions of each): ______________________________________________________________________ Sanitary wastewater iii.Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities?EYes INo If Yes: •Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used:N/A •Name of district:N/A •Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project?DYes QNo •Is the project site in the existing district?QYes EJNo •Is expansion of the district needed?DYes DNo Page 5 ofl3 .Do existing sewer lines serve the project site?QYes QNo .Will a line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project?QYes QNo If Yes: .Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: _________________________________________ N/A iv.Will a new wastewater (sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site?DYes No If Yes: .Applicant/sponsor for new district: _________________________________________________________________________ .Date application submitted or anticipated: ____________________________________________________________________ .What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? _________________________________________________________ V.Ifpublic facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge or describe subsurface disposal plans): A septic system that includes a subsurface mound absorption bed,septic tank,and pump station will be installed to provide wastewater treatment for the project. The required onsite wastewater treatment system construction permit will be applied for and obtained from the Tompkins County Health Department. vi.Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste: ______________________________________________________ N/A e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point IYes QNo sources (i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point source (i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction? If Yes: I.How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size ofproject parcel? ______ Square feet or 3.47 acres (add’l impervious surface) ______ Square feet or 123 acres (parcel size) ii.Describe types ofnew point sources.Driveway/parking drainage system,swales,athletic field underdrains iii.Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties, groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? Runoffwill be collected via a system ofdrainage inlets,swales,and underdrains;then directed to two bioretention filters and an extended detention shallow wetland before being released to Cascadilla Creek.Existing drainage patterns and rates will be maintained. .If to surface waters,identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: _______________________________________________________ Cascadilla Creek .Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties?DYesI No iv.Does the proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater?DYesNo f.Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel DYes No combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations? IfYes,identify: i.Mobile sources during project operations (e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles) ii.Stationary sources during construction (e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers) iii.Stationary sources during operations (e.g.,process emissions,large boilers,electric generation) g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit,QYes WINo or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit? If Yes: i.Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area?(Area routinely or periodically fails to meet DYes DNo ambient air quality standards for all or some parts ofthe year) ii.In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate: . ___________Tons/year (short tons)ofCarbon Dioxide (C02) . ___________Tons/year (short tons)ofNitrous Oxide (N20) • ____________Tons/year (short tons)of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) • ___________Tons/year (short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) • ___________Tons/year (short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) • ___________Tons/year (short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Page 6 of 13 h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants,LJYesINq landfills,composting facilities)? If Yes: I.Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): _________________________________________________________________________ ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g.,combustion to generate heat or electricity,flaring): i.Will the proposed action result in the release ofair pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as UYesNo quarry or landfill operations? IfYes:Describe operations and nature ofemissions (e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust): j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial QYesNo new demand for transportation facilities or services?,,Although checked no,please see parts 2 &3 If Yes: i.When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply):Q Morning Q Evening QWeekend D Randomly between hours of__________to ________ ii.For commercial activities only,projected number of truck trips/day and type (e.g.,semi trailers and dump trucks): ______________ iii.Parking spaces:Existing Proposed _____________ Net increase/decrease ________________________ iv.Does the proposed action include any shared use parking?OYes No V.Ifthe proposed action includes any modification ofexisting roads,creation ofnew roads or change in existing access,describe: vi.Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within ‘/2 mile ofthe proposed site?YesDNo vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric Yes No or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing UYesflNo pedestrian or bicycle routes? k.Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand QYesNo N/A for energy?Project is not a commercial or industrial project If Yes: I.Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ________________________________________________ ii.Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or other): iii.Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade,to an existing substation?DYesUNo 1.Hours of operation.Answer all items which apply. I.During Construction:ii.During Operations: •Monday -Friday:7AM -3PM •Monday -Friday:6AM -9PM •Saturday:7AM -3PM •Saturday:9AM -9PM •Sunday:.7AM-3PM •Sunday:.9AM-9PM •Holidays:7AM -3PM •Holidays:n/a Page 7 of 13 m.Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,I Yes DNo operation,or both? If yes: i.Provide details including sources,time ofday and duration: Construction:Typical construction and jobsite activity noise:Diesel engines,dump trucks,excavators,etc. Operations:PA system,spectators,field hockey activity during practices and games ii.Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen?D Yes WINo Describe: n.Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting?I Yes QNo If yes: i.Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: Twenty-two 20’pedestrian lights will be installed in the proposed parking lot and along the sidewalk/path circulation areas between parking,field hockey field,and support facility locations.Four 70’tall standard athletic lighting poles will be sited atthe corners ofthe field hockey field. ii.Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen?D Yes WINo Describe: 0.Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day?Q Yes WINo IfYes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration ofodor emissions,and proximity to nearest occupied structures: p.Will the proposed action include any bulk storage ofpetroleum (combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons)Q Yes INo or chemical products 1 85 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage? If Yes: i.Product(s)to be stored ii.Volume(s) _______ per unit time ____________ (e.g.,month,year) iii.Generally,describe the proposed storage facilities:_________________________________________________________________________ q.Will the proposed action (commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides (i.e.,herbicides,I Yes QNo insecticides)during construction or operation? If Yes: i.Describe proposed treatment(s): If necessary,a professional will apply pesticides or herbicides to control unwanted vegetation and pests.Cornell utilizes an Integrated Pest Management approach to grounds management on campus that will be used at this site as well. ii.Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices?I Yes QNo r.Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal D Yes DNo N/A of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?Project is not a commercial or industrial pjçjçcIfYes: i.Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation ofthe facility: •Construction: _____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time) •Operation: _____________________ tons per _________________ (unit of time) ii.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste: •Construction: ___________________________________________ •Operation: _______________________________________________ iii.Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site: •Construction: ___________________________________________ •Operation: _________________________________________________ Page 8 of 13 S.Does the proposed action include construction or modification ofa solid waste management facility?U Yes No If Yes: i.Type ofmanagement or handling ofwaste proposed for the site (e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or other disposal activities): ii.Anticipated rate of disposal/processing: . _________ Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or . _________ Tons/hour,if combustion or thermal treatment iii.If landfill,anticipated site life: _____________________________________ years t.Will the proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous QYes WINo waste? If Yes: i.Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility: ______________________________ ii.Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ________________________________________ iii.Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/month iv.Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse ofhazardous constituents: _____________________________ V.Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility?UYesONo IfYes:provide name and location of facility: _________________________________________________________________________ IfNo:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility: E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action E.1.Land uses on and surrounding the project site a.Existing land uses. i.Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site. U Urban Industrial I Commercial I Residential (suburban)l Rural (non-farm) Forest LI Agriculture I Aquatic I Other (specify):soccer fields and baseball diamond ii.If mix of uses,generally describe:(Cascadilla Creek is located approx.575+!-ft north of project)ç b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site. Land use or Current Acreage After Change Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres +/-) .Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious surfaces 1.55 5.02 +3.47 .Forested .Meadows grasslands or brushlands (non- ....4.70 2.53 -2.17agricultural,_including_abandoned_agricultural) .Agricultural (includes_active_orchards,_field,_greenhouse_etc.) •Surface water features .0.10 0.33 +0.23 (lakes,_ponds,_streams,_rivers,_etc.) .Wetlands_(freshwater_or_tidal) •Non-vegetated (bare rock,earth or fill) •Other Describe:Lawn 9.30 777 -1.53 Page 9 of 13 C.Is the project site presently used by members ofthe community for public recreation?YesNo i.IfYes:explain: d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities (e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed QYesNo day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet ofthe project site? If Yes, i.Identify Facilities: e.Does the project site contain an existing dam?YesNo If Yes: 1.Dimensions of the dam and impoundment: .Dam height: _________________________________ feet .Dam length: _________________________________ feet .Surface area: ______________________________________ acres .Volume impounded: ________________________________ gallons OR acre-feet ii.Dam’s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Provide date and summarize results of last inspection: f.Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility,QYesNo or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility? If Yes: I.Has the facility been formally closed?.QYesD No .If yes,cite sources/documentation: _________________________________________________________________________________ ii.Describe the location ofthe project site relative to the boundaries ofthe solid waste management facility: iii.Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: ________________________________________________ g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed ofat the site,or does the project site adjoin YesNo property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste? If Yes: I.Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred: h.Potential contamination history.Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any DYes No remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site? If Yes: i.Is any portion ofthe site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site DYesDNo Remediation database?Check all that apply: D Yes —Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): _________________________________ 0 Yes —Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): _________________________________ O Neither database ii.If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures:___________________________________________ iii.Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database?OYesNo If yes,provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________________________________________________________ iv.If yes to (i),(ii)or (iii)above,describe current status of site(s): Page 10 of 13 V.Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses?flYesINq .Ifyes,DEC site ID number: ______________________________________________________________________________ .Describe the type ofinstitutional control (e.g.,deed restriction or easement): _______________________________________ .Describe any use limitations: _______________________________________________________________________________________ .Describe any engineering controls: _________________________________________________________________________ .Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place?QYesNo .Explain: E.2.Natural Resources On or Near Project Site a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site?>io feet b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site?DYes No IfYes,what proportion ofthe site is comprised ofbedrock outcroppings?N/A % c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site:Silt mixed with clay and trace sand.100 % Glacial Till (>13 ft depth) ___________%________________________% d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site?Average:>10 feet e.Drainage status ofproject site soils:Well Drained:100 %of site D Moderately Well Drained: ______% of site D Poorly Drained _____% of site f.Approximate proportion ofproposed action site with slopes:I 0-10%:100 %of site LI 10-15%: _____% of site 0 15%or greater: ______% of site g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site?DYesNo IfYes,describe: h.Surface water features. i.Does any portion ofthe project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams,rivers,UYesNo ponds or lakes)? ii.Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site?YesDNo IfYes to either i or ii,continue.IfNo,skip to E.2.i. iii.Are any ofthe wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal,Yes DNo state or local agency? iv.For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information: .Streams:Name Cascadilla Creek Classification Riverine .Lakes or Ponds:Name _____________________________________________ Classification ________________________ .Wetlands:Name ______________________________________________ Approximate Size ____________________ .Wetland No.(ifregulated by DEC) _____________________________ V.Are any ofthe above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation ofNYS water quality-impaired DYes INo waterbodies?. Ifyes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _______________________________________________ i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway?.DYes JNo j Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain2 QYes INo k.Is the project site in the 500-year Floodplain?DYes IZINo 1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer?DYes INo If Yes: i.Name of aquifer: Page 11 of 13 m.Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: _________________________________ Deer Rodents Garter Snakes n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community?DYes jNo If Yes: I.Describe the habitat/community (composition,function,and basis for designation): ________________________________________ ii.Source(s)of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________________ iii.Extent of community/habitat: •Currently: ________________________ acres •Following completion of project as proposed: ______________________ acres •Gain or loss (indicate +or -): _________________________ acres o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Li YesNo endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species? If Yes: i.Species and listing (endangered or threatened):_____________________________________________________________________________________ Three Birds Orchid is identified on the EAF Mapper,but the conditions for this species do not exist on the project site. p.Does the project site contain any species ofplant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of QYesNo special concern? IfYes: i.Species and listing: q.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing?UYesNo If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: E.3.Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site a.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to DYes No Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304? If Yes,provide county plus district name/number: b.Are agricultural lands consisting ofhighly productive soils present?YesDNo i.If Yes:acreage(s)on project site?Approx.I 6 acres between 3 parcels.located south of the project.See Parts 2 &3 (j’) ii.Source(s)ofsoil rating(s):NRCS Soil Mapping c.Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National DYes WINo Natural Landmark? If Yes: I.Nature ofthe natural landmark:D Biological Community Li Geological Feature ii.Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ____________________ d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area?DYesNo If Yes: I.CEA name: ii.Basis for designation: iii.Designating agency and date: Page 12 of 13 :.,. e.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district I YesQNp which is listed on the National or State Register ofHistoric Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register ofllistoric Places? If Yes: I.Nature ofhistoric/archaeological resource:Archaeological Site Historic Building or District ii.Name:Eligible property:CCC Camp SP-48 (140 Game Farm Road) iii.Brief description of attributes on which listing is based: Former Civilian Conservation Corp building (shed)located on the property f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for Yes QNo archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)archaeological site inventory? g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site?IYes flNo If Yes: I.Describe possible resource(s):Former CCC building (see above),I 9th century farm sites,Native American sites ii.Basis for identification:Multiple archaeology investigations. h.Is the project site within fives miles ofany officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local Yes QNo scenic or aesthetic resource? If Yes: i.Identify resource:Cayuga Lake Byway;Town-Designated View on Pine Tree Road;County-Designated View on Turkey Hill/Dodge Road ii.Nature of,or basis for,designation (e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway, etc.):Scenic byway,designated views iii.Distance between project and resource:Byway +/-2.7;Views +/-0.5 miles. i.Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers Q YesNo Program 6 NYCRR 666? If Yes: I.Identify the name of the river and its designation: ___________________________________________________________________ ii.Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666?QYes DNo F.Additional Information Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project. If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them. G.Verification I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Kimberly Michaels Date October 1,2024 Signare________________________________________________Title Director of Landscape Architecture PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13 No No DI nnçk d am ml avat orm Wnnida R In F oeai irjfl ia am ml evat iirr Enrida I In EAF DiEhJ nmjçiig i am ml aVtIn orse innidda I In EAF DjhI l1I.dd.am ml avtk orw innidda I In EAF No No No -Djjhl iiniciiu irbmwhon on Ioc aid h5lwd bmls aid •Iade b.i lo In i.oonç&h.erb EAF Wothoot No Dihl nawiI.did.am ml avidthIn or v ivn,dda I In EAF DjhI ialcEI.did.am ml .vidthhi or v tanddn..hi EAF i am ml avidthk orsv innldda .hi EAF No No EAF Ibppr &miniy Roit WaIneI.y.Nrh 5.Nfl 244 FN aa:flrEWba nrrà bi h&&A L 3 I ç anfl .LI•iw—k ..,....Lr -.:i ‘.EL i4 :iqt: :t. -I ...a .•th c ..a .L’fr TU•:atZ ea -s-b .Lhfvi ;.. C. ---. A b iS.ai fr .-o a ;:-S :.-t‘r - &x I w Mm.-$‘. Wtd t .-f ..,,1.’ Ithaca i;!r:i Drytlen turtt MeGth:_ :I T [tft Itsnfrn IdW•r - ‘);q !hb2 , I lltsHo11 d iesEi frEFii Wia H .:u :it I-EkE.t:,-r”e tw Li1’F ki xjr ‘1L I._r Er I-I:I :C u :00 Lii ‘ti.t’I 79r I—tcrI E,i<ca#Ej,a1-i I Ii-,lwe’tiL i 7r,i4 I F -tlFI-j r’u’1 H °‘I CISU C r I n r F i flu [OtsIc.-Wd,fmit Ann] fiji [LnlWtihs IcaiIReithzahcm Amni C.2ii.ISiW FrEi IJL*EdI Liii EC Spa or InraIflt SIn CcrIniirnhon Hir El hi IDEC Spa or RflIiri SIn - Eihi IDEC Spa or InrIiri SIn Erwionns-d.td Sin nedhon Didthe] Eihi WFài 231017 id DEC Renixi SW E2s ILIrdc,ie SeobcFsksj E2hi I&ifnce Wahr Fishims] E2hi ISniace 11MIn Fnhues] E2Jt.I ISirInn Wdw Fedweij E2hw Ib,ni Wida des] E21 IF1ooI E2J IIGfls Fk.4ihiui] E2t 15011 Yea FIao4hinJ E2L 1A,i1n E2n.%Ithrd CcrnrdsJ E2o.[Enaqlsnl crTlvtahned Spnãs]Y hil Enidimrwid AsmsiL Fain -EAF Mapper &ririaiy Reçat I E2o.IEnzI w 11.ned Spei -Thi Bids Qdid NJ ______________ E2R RIs orAiiis No E.1a.IApiiIi.Diski No E3c.INohcn Nthz LáwhI No Ead IC1IIC EINJIIiIdRI Aii1 No E3.e.%Idi..I Iwd Hwi Y -iE du Furd bcJJIIIW w r or SI Eh 1 EAF Wixh.k E3e.i [bcnd rn S Isfrr iA I-hsdc Ej pmLyXX SP-48 (1411 G Fasni Rood) or 51 EI Sd - NiieJ —___ Eat LAid do11iSdP _________________________It ELLLIEdR.ckIIIIc.1 __________________________ Flu EIIWIiiCITI Anil Fain -EAF Mapper &rrwaaiy Rt 2 Supplemental Information Figure:Site Logistics -March 2025 through August 2025 39 Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency.Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action.We recognize that the lead agency’s reviewer(s)will not necessarily be environmental professionals.So,the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1.To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2,the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question.When Part 2 is completed,the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area,complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2:Highlighted sections are elaborated in .Review all ofthe information provided in Part 1.Part 3 attachment .Review any application,maps,supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. .Answer each ofthe 18 questions in Part 2. .Ifyou answer “Yes”to a numbered question,please complete all the questions that follow in that section. .Ifyou answer “No”to a numbered question,move on to the next numbered question. .Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. .Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.” .The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. •If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact,it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. •When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity,that is,the “whole action”. •Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. •Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1.Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on,or physical alteration of,LINO YES the land surface ofthe proposed site.(See Part 1.D.l)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,answer questions a -j.If “No “,move on to Section 2. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is E2d Qlessthan3feet. b.The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 1 5%or greater.E2f I El c.The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed,or E2a El generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. d.The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal ofmore than 1,000 tons D2a El ofnatural material. e.The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year Die El or in multiple phases. f.The proposed action may result in increased erosion,whether from physical D2e,D2q El disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). g.The proposed action is,or may be,located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.Bli El h.Other impacts:El Page 1 of 10 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2-Identification of Potential Project Impacts Agency Use Only [If applicable] Project:Icu GFR Field Hockey project:1 Date:IMarch 18,2025 FEAF 2019 2.Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of,or inhibit access to,any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g.,cliffs,dunes,NO EYES minerals,fossils,caves).(See Part 1 .E.2.g) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a_-_c._If “No “,_move_on_to_Section_3. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.Identify the specific land form(s)attached:E2g D b.The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a E3c n registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: c.Other impacts:D o 3.Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water El NO YES bodies (e.g.,streams,rivers,ponds or lakes).(See Part 1 .D.2,E.2.h)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -1._If “No “,_move_on_to_Section_4. Relevant No,or Moderate ,. Part I small to large FA Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may create a new water body.D2b,Dlh Q b.The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease ofover 10%or more than a D2b 11 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area ofany body of water. c.The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material D2a D from a wetland or water body. d.The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or E2h D tidal_wetland,_or in the_bed or banks_ofany_other water body. e.The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody,either from upland erosion,D2a,D2h Q runoff or_by_disturbing_bottom_sediments. f.The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s)for withdrawal D2c of water from surface water. g.The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s)for discharge D2d 11 of wastewater to_surface_water(s). h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion,or otherwise create a source of D2e D stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i.The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or E2h D downstream of the site of the proposed action. j.The proposed action may involve the application ofpesticides or herbicides in or D2q,E2h D around_any water body. k.The proposed action may require the construction of new,or expansion of existing,Dl a,D2d D wastewater treatment facilities. Page 2 of 10 1.Other impacts: 4.Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water,or LNO LI YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1.D.2.a,D.2.c,D.2.d,D.2.p,D.2.q,D.2.t) If “Yes “,answer questions a -h.If “No “,move on to Section 5. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action may require new water supply wells,or create additional demand D2c Li U on supplies from existing water supply wells. b.Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable D2c U U withdrawal capacity rate ofthe local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: c.The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and Dia,D2c U U sewer services. d.The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.D2d,E2l U U e.The proposed action may result in the construction ofwater supply wells in locations D2c,Elf,U U where groundwater is,or is suspected to be,contaminated.Elg,Elh f.The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products D2p,E2l U U over ground water or an aquifer. g.The proposed action may involve the commercial application ofpesticides within 100 E2h,D2q,U U feet ofpotable drinking water or irrigation sources.E2l,D2c h.Other impacts:U U 5.Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding.LI NO I1 YES (See Part 1.E.2) If “Yes “,answer questions a -g.If “No “,move on to Section 6.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large , Question(s)impact impact may ..:mayoccur occur a.The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.‘E2i 11 b.The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.E2j D c.The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.E2k Q d.The proposed action may result in,or require,modification of existing drainage D2b,D2e Q patterns. e.The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.D2b,E2i,Q E2j,E2k f.Ifthere is a dam located on the site of the proposed action,is the dam in need of repair,Ele D or upgrade? Page 3 of 10 g.Other impacts: 6.Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.JNO DYES (See Part 1.D.2.f.,D.2.h,D.2.g) If “Yes “,answer questions a -f If “No “,move on to Section 7. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits,the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i.More than 1000 tons/year ofcarbon dioxide (CO2)D2g D D ii.More than 3.5 tons/year ofnitrous oxide (N20)D2g L iii.More than 1000 tons/year ofcarbon equivalent ofperfluorocarbons (PFCs)D2g D iv.More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)D2g D v.More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of D2g hydrochioroflourocarbons (HFCs)emissions vi.43 tons/year or more ofmethane .D2h EJ C b.The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more ofany one designated D2g C C hazardous air pollutant,or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air_pollutants. c.The proposed action may require a state air registration,or may produce an emissions D2f,D2g C C rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs.per hour,or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 1 0 million BTU’s per hour. d.The proposed action may reach 50%ofany ofthe thresholds in “a”through “c”,D2g C C above. e.The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment ofmore than 1 D2s C C ton ofrefuse per hour. f.Other impacts:C C 7.Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss offlora or fauna.(See Part 1.E.2.m.-q.)ENO LYES If “Yes “,answer questions a -j.If “No “,move on to Section 8.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any E2o Q threatened or endangered species,as listed by New York State or the Federal government,that use the site,or are found on,over,or near the site. b.The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation ofany habitat used by E2o D any rare,threatened or endangered species,as listed by New York State or the federal government. c.The proposed action may cause reduction in population,or loss of individuals,of any E2p Q species of special concern or conservation need,as listed by New York State or the Federal government,that use the site,or are found on,over,or near the site. d.The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by E2p D any species of special concern and conservation need,as listed by New York State or the Federal_government. Page 4of 10 e.The proposed action may diminish the capacity ofa registered National Natural E3c Q• Landmark_to_support_the_biological_community_it_was_established_to_protect. f.The proposed action may result in the removal of,or ground disturbance in,any E2n 0 Q portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: g.The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding,foraging,or E2m Qover-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. h.The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,Elb ‘ grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type &information source: i.Proposed action (commercial,industrial or recreational projects,only)involves use of D2q EJ herbicides or pesticides. j.Other impacts:.D 8.Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources.(See Part 1 .E.3.a.and b.)LINO JYES If “Yes “,answer questions a -h.If “No “,move on to Section 9.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 ofthe E2c,E3b l D NYS_Land_Classification_System. b.The proposed action may sever,cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land Ela,Elb 0 D (includes cropland,hayfields,pasture,vineyard,orchard,etc). c.The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction ofthe soil profile of E3b l D active_agricultural_land. d.The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural Elb,E3a D uses,either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District,or more than 10 acres_if not_within_an_Agricultural_District. e.The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation ofan agricultural land El a,Elb Q management_system. f.The proposed action may result,directly or indirectly,in increased development C2c,C3,0 D potential or pressure on farmland.D2c,D2d g.The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland •C2c l D Protection Plan. h.Other impacts:0 Page 5 of 10 9.Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from,or are in ENO L1 YES sharp contrast to,current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource.(Part 1.E.1.a,E.1.b,E.3.h.)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a_-_g._If_“No “,_go_to_Section_10. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal,state,or local E3h Q scenic or aesthetic resource. b.The proposed action may result in the obstruction,elimination or significant E3h,C2b D screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. C.The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:E3h i.Seasonally (e.g.,screened by summer foliage,but visible during other seasons)D ii.Year round D d.The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed E3h action is: .....E2q, 1.Routine travel by residents,including travel to and from work ii.Recreational or tourism based activities Elc e.The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and E3h D appreciation ofthe designated aesthetic resource. f.There are similar projects visible within the following distance ofthe proposed Dia,Ela,11 project:Dif,Dig 0-1/2 mile Y23 mile 3-5 mile 5+mile g.Otherimpacts:Q 10.Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological ENO 1 YES resource.(Part 1.E.3.e,f.and g.) “,,.“,,.Please See Part 3 Attachment If Yes ,answer questions a -e.If No ,go to Section 11. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may .. may occur occur a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous to,any buildings,archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or E3e D State Register of Historical Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner ofthe NYS Office ofParks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing_on_the_State_Register_of Historic_Places. b.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous E3f D to,an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation_Office_(SHPO)_archaeological_site_inventory. c.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous E3g D to,an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: Page 6 of 10 d.Other impacts:Ij If any of the above (a-d)are answered “Moderate to large impact may e.occur”,continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part E3e,E3g,Q fl ofthe site or property.E3f ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration ofthe property’s setting or E3e,E3f,El C integrity.E3g,Ela, Elb iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which E3e,E3f Q C are out of character with the site or property,or may alter its setting.E3g,E3h, C2,C3 11.Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss ofrecreational opportunities or a NO DYES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1.C.2.c,E.1.c.,E.2.q.) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -e._If_“No “,_go_to_Section_12. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action may result in an impairment ofnatural functions,or “ecosystem D2e,Elb n services”,provided by an undeveloped area,including but not limited to stormwater E2h, storage,nutrient cycling,wildlife habitat.E2m,E2o, E2n,E2p b.The proposed action may result in the loss ofa current or future recreational resource.C2a,Elc,D U C2c,E2g c.The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area C2a,C2c U U with few such resources.Elc,E2q d.The proposed action may result in loss ofan area now used informally by the C2c,Elc U U community as an open space resource. e.Other impacts:U U 12.Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical j NO LI YES environmental area (CEA).(See Part 1 .E.3.d) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -c._If_“No “,_go_to_Section_13. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity ofthe resource or E3d U U characteristic_which_was_the_basis_for_designation_ofthe_CEA. b.The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or E3d U U characteristic_which_was_the_basis_for_designation_of the_CEA. c.Other impacts:U U Page 7 of 10 13.Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems.ENO 1 YES (See Part 1.D.2.j) If “Yes “,answer questions a -f If “No “,go to Section 14.Please See Part 3 Attachment Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity ofexisting road network.D2j b.The proposed action may result in the construction ofpaved parking area for 500 or D2j D more vehicles. c.The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.D2j d.The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.D2j Q e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern ofmovement ofpeople or goods.D2j Q f.Otherimpacts: 14.Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy.NO DYES (See Part 1.D.2.k) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a -e._If “No “,_go_to_Section_15. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action will require a new,or an upgrade to an existing,substation.D2k D D b.The proposed action will require the creation or extension ofan energy transmission Dif,Li or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a Dlq,D2k commercial_or_industrial_use. c.The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k D d.The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square Dig D feet_of building_area_when_completed. e.Other Impacts: 15.Impact on Noise,Odor,and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise,odors,or outdoor lighting.DNO EYES (See Part 1.D.2.m.,n.,and o.)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,answer questions a -f If “No “,o to Section 16. .- Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may .may occur occur a.The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local D2m Q regulation. b.The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,D2m,Eld U hospital,school,licensed day care center,or nursing home. c.The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o U Page 8 of 10 d.The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n 0 e.The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing D2n,Ela 0 area conditions. f.Other impacts:0 16.Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure LI NO J YES to new or existing sources of contaminants.(See Part 1 .D.2.q.,E.1.d.f.g.and h.)Please See Part 3 Attachment If “Yes “,answer questions a -m.If “No go to Section 17. - Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may cccur occur a.The proposed action is located within 1500 feet ofa school,hospital,licensed day Eld 0 care center,group home,nursing home or retirement community. b.The site ofthe proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.Elg,Elh 0 c.There is a completed emergency spill remediation,or a completed environmental site Elg,Elh 0 remediation on,or adjacent to,the site ofthe proposed action. d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use ofthe Elg,Elh 0 property (e.g.,easement or deed restriction). e.The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place Elg,Elh 0 to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. f.The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future D2t 0 generation,treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. g.The proposed action involves construction or modification ofa solid waste D2q,Elf 0 management facility. h.The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.D2q,Elf 0 i.The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal,or processing,of D2r,D2s 0 solid waste. j .The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of Elf,Elg 0 a site used for the disposal ofsolid or hazardous waste.Elh k.The proposed action may result in the migration ofexplosive gases from a landfill Elf,Elg 0 site to adjacent off site structures. 1.The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the D2s,Elf,0 project site.D2r m.Other impacts: Page 9 of 10 17.Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans.ENO jYES (See Part 1.C.1 C.2.and C.3.) “,,.“,,.Please See Part 3 Attachment If Yes ,answer questions a -h.If No ,go to Section 18. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may mayoccur occur a.The proposed action’s land use components may be different from,or in sharp C2,C3,Dla 1J contrast to,current surrounding land use pattern(s).Ela,Elb b.The proposed action will cause the permanent population ofthe city,town or village C2 fl in_which_the_project_is_located_to_grow by more_than_5%. C.The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations.C2,C2,C3 0 d.The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans,or other regional land use C2,C2 0 plans. e.The proposed action may cause a change in the density ofdevelopment that is not C3,Dic,U supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.Did,Dif, Did,Elb f.The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development C4,D2c,D2d U that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.D2j g.The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g.,residential or C2a U commercial development not included in the proposed_action) h.Other:U 18.Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character.NO DYES (See Part 1.C.2,C.3,D.2,E.3) If “Yes “,_answer_questions_a_-_g._If “No “,_proceed to_Part_3. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s)impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities,structures,or areas E3e,E3f,E3g o of historic_importance_to_the_community. b.The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g.C4 0 0 schools,_police_and_fire) e.The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and C2,C3 0 0 character. f.Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape.C2,C3 0 0 Ela,Eib E2g,E2h g.Otherimpacts:0 c.The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing. d.The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources. C2,C3,Dif Dig,Eia 0 C2,E3 0 0 J Page 10 of 10 Agency Use Only [IfApplicable] Project :CU Game Farm Road Field Hockey project Date :March 1 8,2025 Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 -Evaluation ofthe Magnitude and Importance ofProject Impacts and Determination of Sign ficance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance.The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not,or may,result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3,the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact.By completing the certification on the next page,the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: .Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude.Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. .Assess the importance ofthe impact.Importance relates to the geographic scope,duration,probability ofthe impact occurring,number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. .The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. .Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not,or may,result in a significant adverse environmental impact. .Provide the reason(s)why the impact may,or will not,result in a significant adverse environmental impact •For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s)imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. •Attach additional sheets,as needed. Please See Part 3 Attachment Determination of Significance -Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status:[]Type 1 []Unlisted Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project:[]Part 1 []Part 2 []Part 3 FEAF 2019 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF,as noted,plus this additional support information Applicatinn pickets th’t incliiHe multiple nrrptivps with pdc1itipnI infnrmition and appendices,site pkin cIrnwing, 3rchitectural drawings and elevations,engineering drawings,landscaping,site lighting,Full EAF Part I ,SWPPP.utility and infrastructure drawings,Phase IA and lB Archaeological studies,and associated maps. and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact,it is the conclusion of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency that: El A.This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore,an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.Accordingly,this negative declaration is issued. E:J B.Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment,that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because ofthe following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will,therefore,be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned,and,therefore,this conditioned negative declaration is issued.A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 6 17.7(d)). E:c.This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment,and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s)and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts.Accordingly,this positive declaration is issued. Name ofAction:Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Name ofLead Agency:Town of Ithaca Planning Board Name ofResponsible Officer in Lead Agency:Caitlin Cameron Title ofResponsible Officer:Chair Signamre ofResponsible Officer in Lead Agency(Date:f Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)Christine Balestra Date:3/11/2025 For Further Information: Contact Person:Christine Balestra,Senior Planner Address:Town of Ithaca,215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,NY 14850 Telephone Number:(607)273-1 747,ext.I 21 E-mail:cbalestratownithacany.gov For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations,a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g.,Town /City /Village of) Other involved agencies (if any) Applicant (if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin:http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html ___________________ Page 2 of 2PRINTFULLFORM \\Part 3 —Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts \\&Determination of Significance \•\Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field \\\State Environmental Quality Review \\Full Environmental Assessment Form Action(s):Site Plan proval,Special Permit,Area Variances,Sewer Exemption Location:Game Farm R ad,Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4,62.-2-5,and 62.-2-6 , LeadAgency:Townoflth aPlanningBoard Involved Agencies:Town of thaca Zoning Board of Appeals,Town of Ithaca Tow Board Description:The project involve Site Plan Approval,Special Permit,Area Var nces,and a Sewer Exemption forthe proposed Come Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field pr ect on Game Farm Road, located immediately east of the exis ng Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves constructing new ield hockey facilities in two p ses,with phase one including the conversion of the existing grass practi e field into a synthetic tur field along with construction of a new driveway,formalized parking area,p estrian amenities,an two support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot restroom/team room building,an a 480 +/-square f ot press box).Phase two involves the construction of a clubhouse for the field ho key team,with ocker rooms,meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms,lounge,toilets,showers,nd indoor nthetic turf training space.Phase two is projected to be constructed within five years of t e athlet field installation.The project also includes new lighting,landscaping,stormwater facili es,a d other site improvements. The Planning Board will consider granting Site Plan Appr val and Special Permit for the project.The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider area variances r lat d to light pole height and fence height.The Town Board will consider approving a sanitary sewer exem ion,as the project includes construction of an onsite wastewater treatment system rather t an conne ting to an existing municipal system. The proposed action is a Type I Action,pursuant ‘o the New York tate Environmental Quality Review Act,6 NYCRR Part 617,and Chapter 148 of the own of Ithaca Cod regarding Environmental Quality Review,because the proposal involves an ac vity,other than the co truction of residential facilities,that involves the physical alterati ,of 10 acres (6 NYCRR 61 4 (b)(6)(i)),and parking for 100 vehicles (Town Code 148-5.C (3)). 1.ImpactonLand e.The proposed action may involve onstruction that continues for more th one year or in multiple phases. f.The proposed action may resul ‘in increased erosion,whether from physical sturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). Briefly describe the impact on land:The existing project site consists of several large arcels, collectively approximately 123+/-acres in size,that are owned by Cornell University an tilized for various educational purpose1.The properties are bound on the north by Cascadilla Creek,n the south by Ellis Hollow Road (CR 110),on the east by Game Farm Road (CR 173),and on the st by the / Part 3 —Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts &Determination of Significance Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field State Environmental Quality Review Full Environmental Assessment Form Action(s):Site Plan Approval,Special Permit,Area Variances,Sewer Exemption Location:Game Farm Road,Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4,62.-2-5,and 62.-2-6 Lead Agency:Town of Ithaca Planning Board Involved Agencies:Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals,Town of Ithaca Town Board Description:The project involves Site Plan Approval,Special Permit,Area Variances,and a Sewer Exemption for 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 support facilities (a 1,700 +1- 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. The Planning Board will consider granting SitePlan Approval and Special Permit for the project.The Zoning Board of Appeals will consider area variances related to light pole height and fence height.The Town Board will consider approving a sanitary sewer exemption,as the project includes construction of an onsite wastewater treatment system rather than connecting to an existing municipal system. The proposed action is a Type I Action,pursuant to the New York 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)). 1.Impact on Land e.The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. f.The proposed action may result in increased erosion,whether from physical disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides). Briefly describe the impact on land:The existing project site consists of several large parcels, collectively approximately 123+!-acres in size,that are owned by Cornell University and utilized for various educational purposes.The properties are bound on the north by Cascadilla Creek,on the south by Ellis Hollow Road (CR 110),on the east by Game Farm Road (CR 173),and on the west by the 1 existing McGovern soccer fields,the Booth baseball field,and inactive agricultural fields.The East Hill Plaza/Summerhill Apartments are located approximately 3,000 feet west of the proposed project. The project site has been utilized for many years as a grass practice field for the Cornell University soccer program.The existing field,along with the adjacent soccer fields,were granted final site plan approval by the Planning Board in August 2003. The proposed project will involve two phases (described on page 1 above),with Phase I expected to take approximately six months to complete.Phase 2 is not expected to be constructed for another several years.However,the proposed septic system and stormwater management system will be sized to accommodate both project phases.This environmental assessment addresses as much of the full project buildout as is currently foreseeable.The Planning Board,as Lead Agency,will evaluate Phase 2,and,if substantial changes are proposed for Phase 2 or Phase 2 contains elements not already known and addressed in the current environmental review,the Planning Board will reassess the environmental impacts of Phase 2 once it is proposed. The Phase 1 portion of project will generate an expected 300 truck trips over atwo-month period. The application materials explain that truck traffic associated with Phase 1 will utilize Interstate 81 North or South,with trucks leaving the site heading north using NYS Route 366/Dryden Road,and those heading south using Tompkins County roads.It is anticipated that Phase 2 construction will utilize the same routes. The potential for increased erosion and the applicant’s proposed mitigations related to the physical disturbance associated with the project are evaluated in #3 below.Based on the above information, impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 3.Impact on Surface Water &5.Impact on Flooding (sections combined due to related impacts) d.The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body. h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i.The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site ofthe proposed action. j.The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body. k.The proposed action may require the construction of new,or expansion of existing,wastewater treatment facilities. (5.Impact on Flooding) d.The proposed action may result in,or require,modification of existing drainage patterns. Briefly describe the impact on surface water and flooding:Cascadilla Creek is located along the northern edge of the project site and is regulated by the Town of Ithaca Stream Setback Law,which requires a 100’setback from the stream for development of structures and certain land disturbing activities.Most of the proposed improvements will be located at least 400+!-feet from the bank of Cascadilla Creek,however a small portion of the extended detention shallow wetland (proposed for a stormwater practice and explained below),will encroach approximately 25+!-feet into Zone 2 of the 2 setback (the zone farthest from the stream).This is permitted per the Town Code,§270-219.5.E (5) (b),which allows the construction of stormwater ponds and wetlands in stream setback Zone 2. The application materials state that the project site drains to Cascadilla Creek and that “if necessary, a professional will apply pesticides and herbicides to control unwanted vegetation and pests.” However,the project will include erosion and stormwater controls noted below,along with the use of Integrated Pest Management practices that will mitigate potential pesticide impacts to the creek. There will be no pesticide application in or around the proposed extended detention shallow wetland. Soil Erosion,Water Quality/Quantity,&Flooding:The project involves earth-moving activities related to grading and preparing the site for the construction of the outdoor field,buildings,access drive, parking area,landscaping,septic system,and stormwater practices.The application materials state that the proposal will physically disturb 12+!-acres,although the increase in impervious area will only be 3.5+!-acres.This includes the future Phase 2 building construction disturbance. To minimize soil erosion,the proposal includes an erosion and sedimentation control plan with silt fence,stabilized construction entrance,and other standard erosion control measures that will minimize soil tracking off-site and control dust. Regarding water quality treatment for the outdoor synthetic turf field,all water falling on the field will infiltrate through the field itself,which will not contain any infill of any kind.The applicant has chosen the “Greenfields TX Pro Plus”product manufactured by TenCate,which is comprised of UV resistant,low density polyethylene monofilament fibers looped through a woven backing cloth.The turf product is PFAS-free (PEAS means perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances)and consists of recycled plastics,recycled rubber,and a binder material.The proposed turf will comply with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laws and regulations,including the requirements of the NYS Carpet Collection Program Law, Environmental Conservation Law §27-3301 through 37-3319.Section 27-3313 states that “no carpet sold or offered for sale in the state shall contain or be treated with PEAS substances for any purpose.” The applicant will comply with this requirement even though it is not effective until the end of 2026. The applicant will also recycle the turf at its end of life. Runoff from the turf field will convey to a proprietary stormwater filter practice that uses a series of high surface area membrane filter cartridges capable of removing physical particulates of 0.025 millimeters (25 micrometers)or larger.The application materials note that most analytical methods can reliably detect microplastic particles as small as 20 to 50 micrometers.The proposed stormwater filtration system is therefore expected to capture and remove microplastics from stormwater runoff off the field to sizes that are consistent with what is measurable. To provide water quality and quantity treatment of stormwater runoff for the rest of the project (including the Phase 2 building),the applicant proposes to construct an extended detention shallow wetland,which will replace two existing small stormwater wet ponds located to the north that were constructed with the McGovern soccer field project (2003).This,along with two proposed bioretention filters,will capture and treat runoff,and provide water quantity reduction as well.The applicant has submitted a Eull Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)to the Town’s Engineering Department for their review and approval.The applicant has been working with the 3 Engineering Department to provide additional calculations and details that meet NYS DEC permitting requirements. The nearest municipal sewer main is located more than 3,000+!-feet west of the project,on Summerhill Lane.The applicant is therefore proposing an onsite wastewater treatment system, consisting of a 3,500-gallon septic tank and mound absorption bed.The mound absorption system will be located along the south side of the proposed parking lot and has been sized using the NYS DEC Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems.As noted above,the proposed system is designed to accommodate all phases of the project.The private septic system requires a Sanitary Sewer Exemption authorization from the Town Board per Town Code §214-5, along with a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)permit from the NYSDEC,and an Onsite Wastewater Treatment System construction permit from Tompkins Whole Health. Though the proposed septic system and leach field area cover significant space above ground,it is still limited in its capacity and would not induce commercial and residential development as municipal water and sewer availability would.Additionally,the proposed septic system is not located within a floodway or floodplain;the average depth to bedrock is more than ten feet in the area;and the proposed system/leach field is located more than 750+/-feet from Cascadilla Creek and the proposed stormwater wetland and biofiltration practices. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 7.Impact on Plants and Animals j.Other Impacts. Briefly describe the impact on plants and animals:The project site has been previously disturbed with the development of athletic facilities,namely soccer fields,baseball fields,parking areas,access drives,lighting,and stormwater management facilities.The NYS DEC Nature Explorer Mapping program identified two species of dragonfly and two species of plants that have been historically confirmed in the area.The Midland Clubtail and Mocha Emerald dragonflies were last confirmed in the area in 1894 and 1926,respectively.The Delicate Rabbit Tobacco (endangered)and the Three Birds Orchid (threatened)were last confirmed in 1919 and 1922,respectively. The Midland Clubtail inhabits medium to large,moderate to rapid-flowing rivers and streams.Mocha Emeralds inhabit small,shaded streams in forested areas that are about 1-3 yards wide with sand, gravel,or rocky substrates.These habitat characteristics are potentially located within the adjacent Cascadilla Creek stream and streamside areas of the property but are not located within the project site (both phases). Similarly,the Delicate Rabbit Tobacco is found in dry woods and openings (occasionally along roadsides);and the Three Birds Orchid is found in forests,shrublands,and woodlands.If present,they would also likely be located in the woods within and surrounding Cascadilla Creek to the north of the project site. There is no evidence of the presence of the aforementioned plant and animal species on the proposed project site (both phases).Given that the species have not been confirmed on the project site for at least 99 years,and that the site has been previously disturbed and does not contain the 4 habitat to support such species,impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 8.Impact on Agricultural Resources h.Other Impacts. Briefly describe the impact on agricultural resources:The specific project site contains an existing grass soccer field,a gravel drive,and a small gravel parking area.The remainder of the project site is maintained as mowed grass,surrounded by fallow agricultural fields.There are two existing soccer fields and a synthetic turf baseball field on two adjacent properties (stormwater and septic facilities associated with the field hockey project will be located on these parcels).None of the properties have been used for agricultural purposes for many years and are notlocated within or near a Tompkins County Agricultural District. The Town of Ithaca has an Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan that was adopted in November 2011.The plan contains a map that shows a strip of land classified as “Farmland of Statewide Importance”that is approximately 16+!-acres in total across the three properties (attached). However,according to the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan,this project site has not been targeted for agricultural easements or any other agricultural protection.Neither of the proposed project phases will impact the 16+!-acre strip of land. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section can be considered small in magnitude. 9.Impact on Aesthetic Resources c.The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage,but visible during other seasons),and/or year-round. d.The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is routine travel by residents,including to and from work,and recreational or tourism activities. f.There are similar projects visible within 0-1/2 mile of the proposed project. Briefly describe the impact on aesthetic resources:The proposed outdoor field hockey field will replace an existing grass soccer field,located near the edge of Game Farm Road.Those who commute to work in Ithaca via Ellis Hollow Road will likely pass the project on their way to and from work.The nearest development is on the adjacent parcel,which contains two lighted soccer fields and associated structures.The parcel to the west of the soccer fields contains the Booth synthetic turf baseball field,with associated buildings,lighting,signage,parking area,and access drive off Ellis Hollow Road.The new field and associated structures will be visible from Ellis Hollow Road and Game Farm Road year-round. The Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County have established Scenic Resources Inventories that identify significant views in the East Hill/Cornell area.The town’s inventory does identify the corner of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads as “noteworthy”(Chapter 3,view #18).However,the view is not considered significant and therefore was not included in the list of significant views to protect. Although the Booth baseball field is within this viewshed,the proposed outdoor field hockey field is not.The proposed location for the future Phase 2 building is also outside the viewshed.There are no 5 other identified scenic resources around the project site that would be impacted by the proposed development. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 10.Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous to,any buildings,archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Parks,Recreation, and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places. b.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous to,an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office archaeological site inventory. Briefly describe the impact on historic and archaeological resources:The project site is not located on or adjacent to any buildings or areas officially listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places.However,an archaeological investigation for the Cornell soccer field project on the same property identified a building associated with a 1930’s Civilian Conservation Corps camp that was located off Game Farm Road,along with the remains of three nineteenth century farms off Ellis Hollow Road,and several Native American sites near Cascadilla Creek. The applicant for the 2021 Booth baseball field project hired Panamerican Consultants Inc.to perform a Phase 1A Cultural Resources Investigation and Phase lB Archaeological Survey to determine if such archaeological resources existed on the three parcels associated with the current project site.The purpose of the Phase 1A investigation was to research the area to identify if previously recorded archaeological resources would be impacted by the baseball field project.Based on the results of the Phase 1A investigation,the baseball field project did not impact previously identified resources.The purpose of the Phase lB survey was to determine the presence of any new cultural resources in the project area.The Phase lB survey did not unearth Native American artifacts or other artifacts of historical significance.As a result,the Panamerican Consultants did not recommend further i nvestigation . An Archaeological Survey addendum was completed by a consultant with the Public Archaeology Facility in Binghamton in 2024 in association with the current field hockey field project.The results of the survey were included in the application materials for the project and provided to the Planning Board in November 2024.One of the statements in the addendum referenced a previously- investigated site that is located close to the proposed extended detention shallow wetland stormwater facility.The language from the addendum states:“The historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site is still within the original 2003 to 2005 project APEfor the Cornell University Athletic Fields,is intact,and in an undisturbed setting.This component area produced an abundance and diversity of early historic artifacts,possibly associated with a settler cabin or camp,and has the potential to produce significant archaeological information about the early historic periodfor the Town of Ithaca.Although this component area is well outside of the current addendum APE summarized for this report,we are recommending that this specific section of Locus 2 be maintained as an existing agricultural field and not subject to construction connected with the university athletic fields (or any other future development projects). As such,the NYS SHPQ is likely to request an official avoidance plan from the university outlining the methods 6 in which the early historic component at Locus 2 of the Cascadilla Creek 2 Site will be protectedfrom future athleticfield developments.” All documents prepared by the 2024 consultant were submitted to NYS Office of Parks,Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP)via the Cultural Resources Information System (these documents included the details and location for all phases of the project).NYS OPRHP reviewed the reports, determined that no archaeological sites were identified,and concurred with the recommendation that no additional archaeological work would be necessary for the project.Bradley W.Russell,Ph.D. Historic Preservation Specialist with OPRHP,stated in his letter to the applicant’s archaeological consultant on October 18,2024,that “QPRHP has reviewed the Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey reportfor the Addendum to the Cornell University Athletic Fields Project (24PR08775)prepared by The Public Archaeology Facility,Binghamton University,Consulting Archaeologists (September 2024;24SR00535).QPRHP concurs with the report recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted.” Although OPRHP recommended no additional archaeological investigation,there should be extra protection of the “CC2 Locus 2”area of the site (see attached map)during construction of the shallow wetland/stormwater facilities associated with the field hockey field project.Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 13.Impact on Transportation e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. Briefly describe the impact on transportation:The project involves replacing an existing gravel entrance off Game Farm Road to access the field hockey project,along with replacing the existing informal parking lot with a new,paved 120-space parking lot (plus two bus parking pull off spaces),to accommodate the field hockey and soccer field uses,including the Phase 2 field hockey clubhouse. Other improvements include pedestrian sidewalks around the parking lot to the soccer fields and new field hockey project,eight bicycle racks that will provide 16 bicycle parking spaces,and a proposed 20-foot wide turnaround access. The existing circulation is characterized by gravel pathways that connect informal parking to the existing McGovern soccer fields and building.The proposal will formalize the parking and improve the connections and access for all users,with paving and striping,access lanes that are wide enough to accommodate fire and emergency vehicles,and ADA-compliant sidewalks and parking spaces.The proposal includes landscaping with native plantings to provide canopy cover to walkways and parking spaces. The application materials include a traffic analysis for the project.According to the analysis,which evaluated the parking needs for both soccer and field hockey team uses,field hockey practices will generate up to 18 vehicle trips between 6:30am and 9:00am,Monday through Friday.Field hockey competitions could generate up to 74 car round trips and two buses in the afternoon/evening hours. Soccer practice (men’s or women’s)would generate 21.5 trips on either end of the 5:00pm to 7:00pm time period,for a total of 43 round trips if both teams practice simultaneously.[Note that the soccer field use is existing,and its impact on traffic was previously analyzed when the soccer fields were approved.] 7 According to the materials,the busiest time period will occur if a field hockey game coincides with practices by both soccer teams,which could happen on a weekend afternoon/evening.The highest demand would generate up to 117 vehicle trips on a fall weekend between the hours of 4:00pm and 7:00pm.This would be considered a small addition of traffic,on a weekend evening (no conflict with typical workday traffic)and would not impact traffic flow for users of Game Farm Road or Ellis Hollow Road,which are both county roads. Like the previous baseball field application,there are no minimum parking requirements established in the Town Code for this type of project and therefore no mechanism for the Planning Board to consider a reduction in required parking.The project is in a residential zone,and the Town Code is silent in terms of parking requirements for an athletic field in a residential zone.The proposed number of parking spaces is based upon detailed projected use for the athletic field functions —which accommodates women’s and men’s soccer practices and field hockey practices and games.Field hockey practices are held in the morning and soccer practices are held in the afternoon,leaving a low likelihood of parking overlapping (except in the case outlined above,which would require up to 117 parking spaces,per the traffic analysis). Given that the project will be constructed on a site that is more than 100 acres in size,there is plenty of space to add future parking if necessary.The applicant would need to come back to the Planning Board for a site plan modification review and approval should they require future parking beyond five more spaces.This would involve another environmental review and analysis of stormwater impacts associated with the additional impervious surface. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 15.Impact on Noise,Odor,and Light a.The proposed action may produce sound above ambient levels established by local regulation. d.The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. Briefly describe the impact on noise and light:The project will create noise impacts during construction of the access road,parking,buildings,and related infrastructure.These impacts will be temporary and will cease once the project is completed. The application materials include an environmental sound analysis to evaluate the proposed public address (PA)system for the project.The PA system has been designed to cover the outdoor playing field and bleachers while minimizing sound to surrounding areas.The system includes seven loudspeakers mounted on three poles to the east side of the field (facing away from Game Farm Road,and toward the field).Three of the speakers will cover the playing field,and the other four will cover the spectator area,including the bleachers and sidelines.It is expected that the PA system will emit sound at 84dB at the center of the playing field,according to the CadnaA modeling software that was used to analyze sound for the project. The calculated sound levels shown in Figure 2 of the sound analysis indicate that sound drops from 84dB in the center of the field to 60dB immediately across Game Farm Road.The nearest residence is located approximately 1,600+!-feet (1/3 mile)south of the proposal,on the east side of Game Farm Road,in the Town of Dryden.Figure 2 indicates that sound will be at 5ObB at this residence,as well as 8 at most residences along the south side of Ellis Hollow Road (there are four residences along Ellis Hollow Road in the affected area).Sound will also be at 5ObB for residents of the Summerhill Apartment complex,located approximately 34 mile west of the project. According to a noise decibel level comparison chart created by Yale Environmental Health and Safety Office,50dB is the equivalent to something between the sound of a suburban area at night and the hum of a household refrigerator.However,the Town of Ithaca does not regulate sound/noise in decibel levels.The Town of Ithaca noise ordinance prohibits “unreasonable noise,”defined as “any excessive or unusually loud sound which either annoys,disturbs,injures,or endangers the comfort, repose,health,peace,or safety of a reasonable person of normal sensitivities.” It is acknowledged from previous environmental reviews in this area of the town that residents who live along Game Farm Road just over the Town of Ithaca/Town of Dryden line have expressed concern about the noise from the existing soccer fields.It is possible that sound impacts could be exacerbated if soccer practices occur at the same time as field hockey games (noted above,weekend afternoons/evenings between 4:00pm and 7:00pm)and/or if field hockey practices during the morning hours (6:30am to 9:30am)are considered a nuisance to neighbors.Although the proposal is not expected to create significant noise impacts,the Planning Board has the authority through the environmental and site plan review and special permit process to control noise associated with construction and other activities.The board could mitigate potential adverse sound impacts in this case by limiting the PA system use to certain times of the day,certain days of the week,or by some other combination of techniques. In terms of lighting,the project includes four 70-feet tall athletic field light poles (two on the east side and two on the west side of the outdoor field)and 22,20-feet tall parking lot light poles.Based on the submitted Lighting Plans,Sheets L6-01,L6-02,and L6-03,the proposed lighting will comply with most of the requirements of the Town Outdoor Lighting Law (Town Code §270-173).It is unclear from the submission whether the shielding for the proposed athletic field light poles comply with Town Code §270-173-9. The law requires all lighting to be fully shielded and angled;and according to page 13 of the application report,the lighting for the field will have a “sharp cutoff”and not a “fully shielded” luminaire.This needs to be clarified.Of note,there are no residences located immediately across the road from the project on Game Farm Road;and the nearest residences on the west side of the project are located Y mile west,on Summerhill Lane.Based on the photometric information provided,these residences are unlikely to be affected by potential light glare associated with the project and the proposal is not expected to create significant impacts due to lighting.However,as in the noise impact section above,the Planning Board could mitigate potential adverse lighting impacts by limiting hours of operation to certain times of the day,certain days of the week,or by some other combination of techniques. The specification sheets for the parking lot lights indicate that the LED lights can be 3000K,4000K,or 5000K.As noted in other environmental reviews,the Outdoor Lighting law is currently silent in terms of LED color temperature,which equates to the perceived color of a light (warmer yellow lights versus cooler blue/white lights).Wherever possible,the Planning Board has been following the recommendations in the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council LED Advisory Guidelines,which suggest streetlighting and other outdoor lighting have no more than a 3000K color 9 temperature (toward yellow or warm).For this project,it will not be possible for the applicant to modify the required color temperature for the field lights,but the applicant should consider using LEDs with a color temperature of 3000K for the parking lot lights,particularly in this part of Game Farm Road,where there is low to moderate ambient lighting. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 16.Impact on Human Health f.The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation, treatment,and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. Briefly describe the impact:Phase 1 of the project includes the replacement of a natural grass athletic field with an outdoor synthetic turf field.Phase 2 of the project includes the construction of a 14,000+!-square foot clubhouse for the field hockey team,with locker rooms,meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms,lounge,toilets,showers,and indoor synthetic turf training space.The proposed turf for both phases will comply with NYS DEC and US EPA laws and regulations,including the requirements of the NYS Carpet Collection Program Law,Environmental Conservation Law §27- 3301 through 37-3319.Section 27-3313 states that “no carpet sold or offered for sale in the state shall contain or be treated with PFAS substances for any purpose.”The applicant will comply with this requirement even though it is not effective until the end of 2026.The proposed fields will not contain any infill of any kind.The applicant has chosen the “Greenfields TX Pro Plus”product manufactured by TenCate,which is comprised of UV-resistant,low density polyethylene monofilament fibers looped through a woven backing cloth.The turf product is PFAS-free and consists of recycled plastics, recycled rubber,and a binder material.Because the product is PFAS-free (as will be confirmed in both phases by an independent testing laboratory prior to the product’s delivery to the project site), information provided to the Planning Board about the effects of PFAS are not relevant to this project. Similarly,because the fields will not contain infill,information provided to the Planning Board about the effects of chemicals found in various types of infill are not relevant to this project. The application materials state the turf blades for the selected turf product are 100%linear low density polyethylene.Low density polyethylene is also used for food packaging,packaging film, squeezable bottles,pipes/tubing,and medical/health care items.The application materials state that since polyethylene is made from a polymer that is stable at high temperatures,it is inert and is not associated with any known health effects,nor is it considered to be carcinogenic by national and world health agencies.The polyethylene Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)that is linked in the application supports these assertions. The application materials further state the selected turf product also contains additives that include heavy metal-free pigments,dulling agents,and UV stabilizers which are encapsulated in the polymer, meaning that exposure to them does not occur and they therefore do not pose a health concern. Regarding heat issues for the outdoor field,the application materials state that while synthetic turf field surfaces do get warmer than natural turf field surfaces,synthetic field surfaces do not retain heat once daytime heating is discontinued.These differences are substantially minimized on cloudy days and do not exist on overcast days.In that respect,synthetic turf fields are different than urban 10 systems (aggregate buildings,roof tops,and pavement)which are associated with contributing to heat island effects because those materials continue to release heat well into the nighttime hours. Given the relatively small size of the field in relation to the 123 acre project site and 506 total acres owned by the applicant in the project vicinity,heat island effects from the outdoor field are not expected to be significant.The applicant’s proposed measures to protect the student-athletes from sports-related heat stress (Cornell Athletics Sports Medicine staff monitoring of heat and humidity, early communication with Cornell Athletics staff and student-athletes)will mitigate the health effects from elevated surface temperatures. The project will convey stormwater runoff from the outdoor field to a proprietary stormwater filter practice that uses a series of high surface area membrane filter cartridges capable of removing physical particulates of 0.025 millimeters (25 micrometers)or larger.The application materials note that most analytical methods can reliably detect microplastic particles as small as 20 to 50 micrometers.The proposed stormwater filtration system is expected to capture and remove microplastics from stormwater runoff off the field to sizes as small as 20 to 50 micrometers. Finally,the applicant is committed to recycling the synthetic turf from both fields at the end of their life.Recycling facilities under consideration include Turf Recyclers in Rockland Maryland (opening May 2025)and re[TURN]Reclamation Program in Dalton,Georgia. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 17.Consistency with Community Plans c.The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. Briefly describe the impact:The project is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map but requires area variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals.These variances are needed because Cornell University is an educational/institutional use in a residential zone,which occurs because the Town of Ithaca doesn’t currently have an Institutional zoning designation.Ithaca College,Cornell University,and other institutional uses are therefore restricted to residential height and area requirements.This project contains light poles that are required to be much taller than a residential structure (p270-59 of Town Code requires a structure height not to exceed 30 feet tall, where the proposed external light poles are approximately 70 feet in height and the proposed camera pole is 35 feet in height).The project also requires fence heights associated with the outdoor athletic field that wouldn’t typically be found on a residential property (270-223,ofTown Code, requires a maximum fence height of 6 feet,where the fence proposed for the netting located on the north and south sides of the field is 30 feet).The proposed variances are not expected to create significant adverse environmental impacts,given the location of the project in an area with other athletic fields with similarly tall light poles and fences and not located within or near a significant view,as identified in the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventories. Based on the above information,impacts identified in this section would be considered small in magnitude. 11 Staff Recommendation,Determination of Significance A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed, based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action,the information above,and analysis of the magnitude and importance of the project impacts.Once Phase 2 project details are proposed,the Planning Board,as Lead Agency,will look at whether the negative determination of environmental significance should be reconsidered if substantial changes are proposed for Phase 2 or Phase 2 contains elements not already known and addressed in the current review. Lead Agency:Town of Ithaca Planning Board—Site Plan Approval,Special Permit Involved Agencies:Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals-Variances Town of Ithaca Town Board—Sewer Exemption Reviewer:Christine Balestra,Senior ann Review Date:March 11,2025 12 http://www.dec.nygov/natureexplorer/ New York Nature Explorer User Defined Results Report Criteria:Selected Map Area \ Tompkins County Common Name Subgroup Distribution Year Last Protection Status Conservation Rank Status Documente State Federal State Global Animal:Dragonflies and Damselflies HistoricallyMidlandclubtailDragonfliesconfirmed 1894 S3 G5 Gomphurusfraternus Historically 1926 S2S3 G5MochaEmeraldDragonfliesconfirmed Somatochiora linearis Plant:Flowering Plants Asters,Goldenrods and HistoricallyDelicateRabbitTobacco 1919 Endangered SH G4G5T3?Daisies confirmed Pseudognaphalium micradenium Historically 1922 Threatened S2 G4?T4?Three Birds Orchid Orchids confirmed Triphoru trianthophoros ssp. trianthophoros New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Page 1 of 2 E 3/7/25 3:40 PM New York Nature Explorer Common Name Subgroup Distribution Year Last Protection Status Conservation Rank Status Documente State Federal State Global Note:Restricted plants and animals may also have also been documented in one or more of the Towns or Cities in which your user-defined area is located,but are not listed in these results.This application does not provide information at the level of Town or City on state-listed animals and on other sensitive animals and plants.A list of the restricted animals and plants documented at the corresponding county level can be obtained via the County link(s)on the original User Defined Search Results page.Any individual plant or animal on this county’s restricted list may or may not occur in this particular user-defined area. This list only includes records of rare species and significant natural communities from the databases of the NY Natural Heritage Program.This list is not a definitive statement about the presence or absence of all plants and animals,including rare or state-listed species,or of all significant natural communities.For most areas,comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted,and this list should not be considered a substitute for on-site surveys. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Page 2 of 2 3/7/25 3:40 PM Farmland Targeted for Protection Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan W•E Map Produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department November 2011 Data Source: Town of Ithaca Planning Department & Tompkins County Information Technology Services GlS Division Town o Lansing of Lansing -_______ FINAL MAP9 A- Privately Owned and Operated Farmland Cornell University and State Owned Agricultural Research Land ——‘Mile 0 0.5 1 Note:Areas identified are approximate. W•E Map Produced by: Town of Ithaca Planning Department November 2011 Data Source: Town of Ithaca Planning Department & Tompkins County Information Technology Services GIS Division Agricultural Soils Town of Ithaca Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan I FINAL MAP 5 USDA Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance —‘Mile 0 0.5 1 Soil Map—Tompkins County,New York 42 26 28”N 42 26’28”N 42 2 53”N 42 25 53”N k Map Scale:1:5,270 if printed on A portrait (8.5”xli”)sheet N o so ioo 0 250 500 1000 1500 Map projection:Web Mercator Comercoordinat:WG584 Edge tics:LJTM Zone 18N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources 3/6/2025 Conservation Service Page 1 of 3 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Soil Map—Tompkins County,New York MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOl) Area of Interest (AOl) Soils El Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines •Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features (2)Blowout Borrow Pit *Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot O Landfill Lava Flow Marsh orswamp MineorQuarry Miscellaneous Water o Perennial Water Rock Outcrop +Saline Spot ::Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background •Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at 1:20,000. 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 ofthe 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. !SDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 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. Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Page 2 of 3 :VJ Soil Map—Tompkins County New York r Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOl Percent of AOl BaC Bath channery silt loam,5 to 2.1 1.6% 15 percent slopes BtF Bath,Valois,and Lansing soils,0.1 0.1% 35 to 60 percent slopes CdC Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 16.1 12.2% 15 percent slopes EbB Erie channery silt loam,3 to 8 56.6 42.9% percent slopes EcA Chippewa and Alden soils,0 to 1.4 1.1% 8 percent slopes ErA Erie-Chippewa channery silt 0.6 0.4% loams,0 to 3 percent slopes - HsB Hudson silty clay loam,2 to 6 3.8 2.9% percent slopes HsC3 Hudson silty clay loam,6 to 12 6.5 4.9% percent slopes,eroded HsD3 Hudson silty clay loam,12 to 0.5 0.4% 20 percent slopes,eroded LaB Langford channery silt loam,2 3.0 2.3% to 8 percent slopes LaC Langford channery silt loam,8 8.8 6.6% to 15 percent slopes LtB Lordstown,Tuller,and Ovid 0.3 0.2% soils,shallow and very shallow,0 to 15 percent slopes Mm Madalin mucky silty clay loam 4.6 3.5% PhB Phelps gravelly silt loam,3 to 8 3.3 2.5% percent slopes RkB Rhinebeck silt loam,2 to 6 20.4 15.5% percent slopes VbB Volusia channery silt loam,3 to 1.1 0.9% .8 percent slopes . VbC Volusia channery silt loam,8 to 2.7 2.0% 15 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 132.0 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description:Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 15 percent slopes---Tompkins County, New York Tompkins County,New York CdC—Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol:9x16 Elevation:600 to I 800 feet Mean annualprecipitation:32 to 42 inches Mean annual air temperature:45 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period:120 to 160 days Farmland classification:Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Chenango and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Estimates are based on obseniations,descriptions,and transects of the mapunit. Description of Chenango Setting Landform:Terraces,valley trains Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Gravelly loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits,derived mainly from sandstone,shale,and siltstone Typical profile HI -0 to 8 inches:gravelly loam H2 -8 to 26 inches:gravelly silt loam H3 -26 to 60 inches:very gravelly loamy coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Capacity ofthe most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply,0 to 60 inches:Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated):None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated):3e Hydrologic Soil Group:A Ecological site:Fl 40XY021 NY -Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating:No USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:Chenango gravelly loam,5 to 15 percent slopes---Tompkins County, NewYork £{1I Minor Components Tioga Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Howard Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Red hook Percent of map Unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Braceville Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating:No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area:Tompkins County,New York Survey Area Data:Version 20,Aug 29,2024 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/6/2025 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Public Archaeok -03PR00922,Addendum Phase 1 Report P”’142 0 30 60 90 m 0 100 200 ft same FarrnRo Addendum APE Addendum Survey STPs (n=64) •STP w/Historic or Modern •STP w/no artifacts ‘“s Cornell Athletic Fields APE (PAF investigations 2003-2005) IEJ Cornell Gas Line APE (PAF investigations 2006-2007) Historic Component_Interpolated Artifacts High Frequency Low Frequency Page 1 of 2 PB RESOLUTION 2025-014: SEQR Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Project Tax Parcel No.’s 62.-2-4, 62.-2-5, 62.-2-6 Game Farm Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board March 18, 2025 WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of a SEQR determination for 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 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 Van Leeuwen, Fisher Associates, 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)); 3. At its meeting on November 19, 2024, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board (1) reviewed 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; and (2) 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, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, on January 7, 2025, established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- described proposal; 5. The Planning Board, on March 4, 2025, discussed the environmental review and directed the Planning staff to draft the Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 2 and 3 to support a negative determination of environmental significance for the Planning Board’s discussion and consideration at its March 18, 2025, meeting; 6. The Planning Board, on March 18, 2025, has accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff, the materials noted in Whereas #3 above; additional materials in a binder titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Supplemental Materials Submission,” dated January 31, 2025, prepared PB 2025-014 (Filed 3/19) Page 2 of 2 by Fisher Associates; additional supplemental materials in a binder titled “Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Supplemental Materials Submission,” dated February 21, 2025, prepared by Fisher Associates; written and oral public comments and documents submitted by the public; and other materials; 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 proposal, based on the information in the Full EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the Full EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. 1 Paulette Rosa From:David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov> Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2025 2:58 PM To:Paulette Rosa Subject:FW: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca David O'Shea, P.E. Director of Engineering/Town Engineer Town of Ithaca 607-273-1656 ext 257 From: Nicholson, Brian M (DEC) <Brian.Nicholson@dec.ny.gov> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 3:33 PM To: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Cc: David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Hanas, Debra (DEC) <Debra.Hanas@dec.ny.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca Hi JusƟn, I reviewed a design manual from Aug. 2003 and I didn’t find the requirement to model ag land as meadow cover type back then, so I don’t want to hold them to that design standard from the design they developed in 2002/3. They can design the stormwater pracƟces based on the current site as exisƟng condiƟons and design the stormwater pracƟces accordingly to the new development. If your team has documentaƟon showing they were required to meet “Meadow cover” during the 2003 design, then we can look at holding them to that design standard. Thanks, Brian Brian M. Nicholson, P.E. Professional Engineer 1 (Env.) Region 7, Division of Water New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 5786 Widewaters Parkway, Syracuse, NY 13214-1867 P: 315-426-7530 | F: 315-426-7459 | brian.nicholson@dec.ny.gov www.dec.ny.gov | | From: Nicholson, Brian M (DEC) Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 3:58 PM To: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Cc: David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Hanas, Debra (DEC) <Debra.Hanas@dec.ny.gov>; Emily Rodgers 2 <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca Hi JusƟn, I’ve sent out a couple of emails to see what my colleagues think about this situaƟon. I’ll get back to you next week with an answer. Thanks, Brian From: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2024 8:07 AM To: Hanas, Debra (DEC) <Debra.Hanas@dec.ny.gov>; Nicholson, Brian M (DEC) <Brian.Nicholson@dec.ny.gov> Cc: David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Subject: SPDES Permit Review Question - Town of Ithaca ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Good Morning Deb and Brian, We would like some clarification regarding a proposed project in the Town of Ithaca. The project is proposing to convert an existing natural turf grass field with underdrains into a synthetic turf field along with a few small buildings, spectator facilitie total of 4 natural turf grass fields with underdrains, a gravel parking lot and driveway, and a metal building with locker rooms and bathrooms. As part of the original project in 2003, 2 stormwater ponds were installed for both water quality treatment and quantity attenuation. wetland practice. At the time the SWPPP was approved in 2003, the applicant modeled the precondition as row crop. Only one of the natural grass turf fields will be disturbed during this project, the remaining 3 with remain undisturbed. Now that they are proposing to remove the 2 stormwater ponds with this project and install a new practice for attenuation, we are thinking the applicant should model the pre-condition as meadow prior to the 2003 project not the current pond outflows (which are based on the natural turf fields with under drains being considered a pervious surface). Our rational is based on recent guidance received from DEC pertaining to natural turf fields with underdrains being considered an impervious surface. How should this be handled? Should the applicant be required to re-evaluate the quantity attenuation for the entire site with the pre-construction condition being the condition prior to the 2003 project or can they use the pre- condition as the pond discharge rates which were developed based on the fields being considered as pervious? The question is ultimately being posed because a new attenuation practice is being installed to replace the ponds. Sincerely, Justin McNeal Civil Engineer Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept. 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 Some people who received this message don't often get email from jmcneal@townithacany.gov. Learn why this is important 3 W: (607)-273-1656 Ext. 260 C: (607)-220-8342 1 Paulette Rosa From:David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov> Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2025 2:58 PM To:Paulette Rosa Subject:FW: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo David O'Shea, P.E. Director of Engineering/Town Engineer Town of Ithaca 607-273-1656 ext 257 From: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:47 AM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov>; David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Cc: Abby Homer <ahomer@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo Hello Chris, Yep, we would like to send them out to the applicant team so they can get a jump on the comments. We have had a couple of quick conversations with the Engineer, they have asked if we had reviewed the materials submitted and if we have any comments. We understand that they may need to change things as the Planning Board reviews materials, but we are also trying to coordinate reviews between the multiple Dev Rev projects. We would like to have this comment letter out to them before they send in the next set of revisions to limit the number of times we are reviewing the materials. Thank You, Justin McNeal Civil Engineer Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept. 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 W: (607)-273-1656 Ext. 260 C: (607)-220-8342 From: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 10:30 AM To: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov>; David Oshea <DOshea@townithacany.gov>; Emily Rodgers <erodgers@townithacany.gov> Cc: Abby Homer <ahomer@townithacany.gov> Subject: RE: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo 2 Thanks Justin. This information is fantastic, but extremely premature. The PB hasn’t even decided to be the lead agency in the environmental review. And there’s a good chance that plans (and SWPPP) will need modification, as the project does go through the environmental review. We are about two steps away from that now. Are you sure you don’t want to hang onto these comments until a later phase of review (e.g., SEQR determination, or preliminary site plan review)? Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273-1721, ext. 121 cbalestra@townithacany.gov From: Justin McNeal <JMcNeal@townithacany.gov> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 10:53 AM To: Chris Balestra <CBalestra@townithacany.gov> Cc: Abby Homer <ahomer@townithacany.gov> Subject: Game Farm Field Hockey Project Engineering Review Memo Good Morning Chris, We have completed our initial review of the Game Farm Field Hockey project. Could you please send this out to the project team? If you would like me to upload it somewhere specific instead, please let me know. Have a good weekend, Justin McNeal Civil Engineer Town of Ithaca Engineering Dept. 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, NY 14850 W: (607)-273-1656 Ext. 260 C: (607)-220-8342 605 W. State Street | Ithaca, NY 14850 | phone 607-272-6477 | fax 607-273-6322 | www.tgmillerpc.com David A. Herrick, P.E. Frank L Santelli, P.E. Owen B. Barden, P.E. Donald M. Harner, P.E. LEED A.P., C.P.E.S.C. Lee Dresser, L.S. Jacqueline L. Dresser, L.S. March 14, 2025 Kimberly Van Leeuwen, RLA Director of Landscape Architecture Fisher Associates 1001 W. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Cornell University Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field Town of Ithaca SWPPP Review Comments Dear Ms. Van Leeuwen: Below please find our responses to review comments dated December 6, 2024 and prepared by David O’Shea, P.E. for the above referenced project. For ease of review, original review comments are re-stated and our responses are included in bold type. Sewer: 1.Prior to Final Site Plan Approval Submission, A Sewer Exemption Request must be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department regarding the proposed septic system. The request will go before the Public Works Committee and the Town Board for review and approval. TGM Response: Acknowledged, a sewer exemption request was submitted to the Town by Cornell University on March 7, 2025. 2.All plan sheets should be updated to show the existing septic system filter area and proposed filter area. These areas should be delineated to be protected during construction. TGM Response: The existing septic system is noted on all project drawings and notes are added to protect these areas. Stormwater: 1.The complete SWPPP and associated documents will need to be uploaded to OpenGov under a SWPPP application and fee paid once they have been approved. TGM Response: The SWPPP will be uploaded to OpenGov and the application fee will be paid. 2.Revise the table of contents to correct page numbers and remove unused chapters. TGM Response: The table of contents has been revised accordingly. 3.Please update the SWPPP to include information and associated requirements for seeking a 5-ac waiver for disturbance. TGM Response: Page 1 of the SWPPP includes language regarding the need for written authorization prior to disturbing 5 acres. T.G. Miller, P.C. 2 4.Please indicate which version of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual was used for this project. TGM Response: The 2015 New York State Stormwater Management Desing Manual was used for the project. 5.Please update the Vol. I narrative regarding fill sites. If the fill site is within an MS4, the MS4 must approve the site and sign onto the SWPPP. TGM Response: Based on recent communications with NYSDEC Region 7 Staff, we have learned that remote fill sites (i.e. greater than ¼-mile from the project) do not need to sign onto the project SWPPP. It is still the responsibility of any fill site owner to comply with local and NYSDEC regulations pertaining to soil disturbance activities on the land of those fill sites. The written communications between TGM and NYSDEC will be shared with the Town Engineer. The SWPPP has been revised to reflect this. 6.Please update the SWPPP narrative to correctly and consistently identify the onsite soil groups. Dual soil groups are identified in the mapping. Please elaborate on what value you are using and why. TGM Response: The dual soil groups identified in the USDA soil survey have been added to on-site soil section of the SWPPP narrative. For areas where dual soil groups have been identified, they are assumed to have a HSG rating of “D”. This assumption is based on the onsite infiltration and percolation testing conducted (Please see response to comment #14 for additional information). Additionally, the previously approved 2003 SWPPP utilized a HSG rating of “D” for all dual soil group areas. 7.Please update existing tables or provide additional tables identifying the amount of new impervious per watershed. The map provided does not provide this information as you are modifying drainage boundaries. TGM Response: After further conversation with the Town Engineering staff this comment is no longer applicable. 8.Update the narrative to provide information on how the turf field will drain and get into the drainage system. TGM Response: The SWPPP narrative has been updated accordingly. 9.There are discrepancies between the SWPPP narrative and the site map regarding impervious and pervious acreage. Please provide clarification. If the main outer watershed boundary is not changing, Table 1 and Table 2 area summations should be equal. TGM Response: The SWPPP has been revised to address these discrepancies. 10.In Watershed 4, the narrative states the area is 11.73 acres of impervious surface, most of the area is pervious lawn. Please clarify this discrepancy. TGM Response: Existing watershed #4 has 0.86 acres of impervious cover, not 11.73. This has been revised in both the SWPPP narrative and on the existing watershed map. 11.The narrative references a Min Rv number of 0.2, but this value is not used in the water quality volume or runoff reduction calculations. Please revise the calculations accordingly. TGM Response: Calculations have been revised accordingly. T.G. Miller, P.C. 3 12.Please clarify why RRv is not being provided for impervious areas that are being disturbed. TGM Response: All existing impervious areas that will be disturbed are in Watersheds #4A and #5. The required RRv for each is 1,210 CF and 2,510 CF, respectively. Bioretention filter #1, located within watershed #4A, provides 1,716 CF of RRv while bioretention filter #2, located within watershed #5, provides 3,098 CF. It should be noted, there are sections of existing impervious area, a large portion of the gravel driveway, that is being restored to pervious lawn. 13.Please provide the borings logs as indicated in the SWPPP. They are not included. TGM Response: Boring logs have been attached to the SWPPP. 14.Please be more specific on why site limitations exist. Please include the definition and which criteria allows them to be utilized. TGM Response: Percolation testing was conducted at different locations throughout the site as part of the 2003 McGovern soccer field project geotechnical explorations. The results of these tests indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Additionally, the boring logs indicate a high prevalence of clay soils throughout the site. In support of the current project’s septic system design, T.G. Miller, P.C. conducted percolation testing. The results also indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Furthermore, the USDA soil survey report for the project indicates that the underlying soil for a large percentage of the project has hydrologic soils group rating of “D” or “C/D”. The geotechnical report has been attached to the SWPPP. 15.Sediment Traps and Sediment Basins are both called out in the narrative and plan set. Please verify which is being proposed. Please provide associated calculations and details as required by the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Blue Book). TGM Response: All references to sediment traps have been removed. Sediment basin calculations and topography have been added to drawing C102. 16.Update the plan set to include a Concrete Washout Area and its associated construction detail. TGM Response: A concrete washout detail has been added to the drawings. 17.Please revise the plan set to include the following details: •Sediment Trap or Sediment Basin TGM Response: See response to comment #15. •Rock Check Dam TGM Response: A Rock Check Dam detail has been added. •Bioretention Filter Forebay and Weir. Please review this with the landscape plan relative to soils and vegetation requirements that differ between the forebay and the filter area. TGM Response: Bioretention filter and forebay plantings have been coordinated with landscape plans. •Extended Detention Short Wetland TGM Response: An enlarged plan of the extended detention ‘shallow’ T.G. Miller, P.C. 4 wetland has been added to the drawings. 18.Please add the following items to the plan set. •Include mound septic system on proposed drainage plan C105. TGM Response: The mound septic system has been added to C105. •Silt sock detail on Sheet C102 needs to be revised to match the Blue Book. TGM Response: The silt log detail on C102-3 has been revised. •Indicate material staging area on plan. Please note this area must be on a stabilized surface. TGM Response: The contractor material staging area has been added to all ESC plans. •Add winter stabilization procedures to the plan set. TGM Response: Winter stabilization notes have been to the ESC plans. •Indicate stream setbacks on all plan sheets. Please verify this setback was determined in accordance with the Code of the Town of Ithaca and accounts for any steep slopes that may be present. TGM Response: The stream setback has been added to all applicable plans where the viewport and scale allows. The stream setback shown was calculated in accordance with Town of Ithaca Code, inclusive of adjacent steep slopes. 19.Identify the length of the tracking pads. TGM Response: The length of the tracking pads has been added to the ESC plans. 20.Provide erosion and sediment control plan for phasing. TGM Response: Three erosion and sediment control plans have been prepared to reflect phasing. 21.Contour labels need to be added to the drainage plan in the stormwater practices where they are not provided on the grading plan. It would be beneficial for the contours in their entirety to be labeled on the drainage plan. TGM Response: Contour labels have been added within the extended detention shallow wetland. 22.There appears to be a difference between the drainage plan and grading plan. Please review and update accordingly. TGM Response: Drainage plan and grading plan have been coordinated. 23.The demo plan incorrectly identifies which pipe is being removed at the western pond. TGM Response: The demo plan has been revised accordingly. 24.Please review the existing catch basins and proposed grading plan. There are numerous basins around the proposed field that will need adjustments. Please review these basins and with other site improvements. There appears to be conflicts depicted in the plan set. TGM Response: Notes have been added to the drainage plan indicating rim elevation adjustments to all existing catch basins. All conflicts with site improvements have been resolved. 25.Please identify how the existing field drains (labeled tile outlet) will be handled. T.G. Miller, P.C. 5 TGM Response: Existing field drains will be daylighted into the proposed swale. A note has been added to drawing C105. 26.Update landscaping plans to identify native planting are required as mentioned in the SWPPP narrative. TGM Response: The landscaping plans have been revised accordingly. 27.The modeling of existing conditions must align with the post-conditions outlined in the 2003 SWPPP. This includes accurately representing the field conditions as pervious in the pre-condition per the 2003 SWPPP and now impervious for the post condition based on DEC’s current guidance. The ponds shall be modeled according to their post conditions in 2003 and incorporating any missing stormwater structures into the model. TGM Response: Below is a table summarizing the post-development peak discharge rates for both the 2003 McGovern SWPPP and the current CU GFR SWPPP. For the purposes of a pre- versus post-development comparison, the rates from 2003 SWPPP shall be considered as the pre-developed condition per the above Town review comment. As can be seen, the post-development peak discharge is attenuated for the 1, 10, and 100-yr storm events by the proposed stormwater management approach. The SWPPP narrative will be revised to consider the 2003 SWPPP post development runoff rates as the pre- development rates for the current project. 28.Please provide additional information supporting your design that water will be conveyed to the attenuation device. Current modeling indicates that the structures are overtopping. TGM Response: Regarding diversion structure #1, runoff that may surcharge out of the structure will be captured by downstream drainage structures. If for any reason those structures become plugged and are not able to function, then all runoff will be conveyed to the attenuation device via the overland flow path between fields 3 & 4. Regarding diversion structure #2, the HydroCAD model has been revised so that runoff is no longer surcharging. 29.There are numerous discrepancies between the plan set and the HydroCad calculations. Please revise the materials accordingly. The calculations were not reviewed in detail due to the discrepancies. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised to be consistent with applicable device rims, inverts, and typical details.. 30.Please add the filters to the hydraulic modeling to verify how these systems are acting during the larger storm events (are they overtopping, do the overflow catch basins handle everything, etc.). TGM Response: Both bioretention filters have been added to the HydroCAD model. 31.Diversion Structure 2 appears to be overtopping into the bioretention filter. Provide T.G. Miller, P.C. 6 calculations for the wetland as described in Chapter 6 section 1 and 2 of the Stormwater Management Design Manual. Note stormwater wetlands must also meet the requirements of Stormwater Ponds. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised and diversion structure #2 no longer surcharges. Calculations have been added to Volume 1 of the SWPPP. Respectfully, David A. Herrick, P.E. Comment # = Plan Revision Required Comment # = Needs to be Completed Comment # = Completed Sewer: 1. Prior to Final Site Plan Approval Submission, A Sewer Exemption Request must be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department regarding the proposed septic system. The request will go before the Public Works Committee and the Town Board for review and approval. TGM Response: Acknowledged, a sewer exemption request will be submitted prior to final site plan. 2. All plan sheets should be updated to show the existing septic system filter area and proposed filter area. These areas should be delineated to be protected during construction. TGM Response: The existing septic system will be noted on all project drawings and notes will be added to protect these areas. Stormwater: 1. The complete SWPPP and associated documents will need to be uploaded to OpenGov under a SWPPP application and fee paid once they have been approved. TGM Response: The SWPPP will be uploaded to OpenGov and the application fee will be paid. 2. Revise the table of contents to correct page numbers and remove unused chapters. TGM Response: The table of contents has been revised accordingly. 3. Please update the SWPPP to include information and associated requirements for seeking a 5-ac waiver for disturbance. TGM Response: Page 1 of the SWPPP includes language regarding the need for written authorization prior to disturbing 5 acres. 4. Please indicate which version of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual was used for this project. TGM Response: The 2015 New York State Stormwater Management Desing Manual was used for the project. 5. Please update the Vol. I narrative regarding fill sites. If the fill site is within an MS4, the MS4 must approve the site and sign onto the SWPPP. TGM Response: Based on recent communications with NYSDEC Region 7 Staff, we have learned that remote fill sites (i.e. greater than ¼-mile from the project) do not need to sign onto the project SWPPP. It is still the responsibility of any fill site owner to comply with local and NYSDEC regulations pertaining to soil disturbance activities on the land of those fill sites. The written communications between TGM and NYSDEC will be shared with the Town Engineer. 6. Please update the SWPPP narrative to correctly and consistently identify the onsite soil groups. Dual soil groups are identified in the mapping. Please elaborate on what value you are using and why. TGM Response: The dual soil groups identified in the USDA soil survey have been added to on-site soil section of the SWPPP narrative. For areas where dual soil groups have been identified, they are assumed to have a HSG rating of “D”. This assumption is based on the onsite infiltration and percolation testing conducted (Please see response to comment #14 for additional information). Additionally, the previously approved 2003 SWPPP utilized a HSG rating of “D” for all dual soil group areas. 7. Please update existing tables or provide additional tables identifying the amount of new impervious per watershed. The map provided does not provide this information as you are modifying drainage boundaries. TGM Response: The proposed watershed map will be updated to distinguish between existing and new imperious cover per watershed. 8. Update the narrative to provide information on how the turf field will drain and get into the drainage system. TGM Response: The SWPPP narrative has been updated accordingly. 9. There are discrepancies between the SWPPP narrative and the site map regarding impervious and pervious acreage. Please provide clarification. If the main outer watershed boundary is not changing, Table 1 and Table 2 area summations should be equal. TGM Response: The SWPPP has been revised to address these discrepancies. 10. In Watershed 4, the narrative states the area is 11.73 acres of impervious surface, most of the area is pervious lawn. Please clarify this discrepancy. TGM Response: Existing watershed #4 has 0.86 acres of impervious cover, not 11.73. This has been revised in both the SWPPP narrative and on the existing watershed map. 11. The narrative references a Min Rv number of 0.2, but this value is not used in the water quality volume or runoff reduction calculations. Please revise the calculations accordingly. TGM Response: For watershed #4A, a Min. RRv HSG reduction factor of 0.2 was used. This value is represented on the Water Quality Volume calculation sheet included in volume II. Please note, a value of 0.3 was used for watershed #5. 12. Please clarify why RRv is not being provided for impervious areas that are being disturbed. TGM Response: All existing impervious areas that will be disturbed are in Watersheds #4A and #5. The required RRv for each is 1,210 CF and 2,510 CF, respectively. Bioretention filter #1, located within watershed #4A, provides 1,716 CF of RRv while bioretention filter #2, located within watershed #5, provides 3,098 CF. It should be noted, there are sections of existing impervious area, a large portion of the gravel driveway, that is being restored to pervious lawn. 13. Please provide the borings logs as indicated in the SWPPP. They are not included. TGM Response: Boring logs have been attached to the SWPPP. 14. Please be more specific on why site limitations exist. Please include the definition and which criteria allows them to be utilized. TGM Response: Percolation testing was conducted at different locations throughout the site as part of the 2003 McGovern soccer field project geotechnical explorations. The results of these tests indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Additionally, the boring logs indicate a high prevalence of clay soils throughout the site. In support of the current project’s septic system design, T.G. Miller, P.C. conducted percolation testing. The results also indicated infiltration rates of less than 0.5 in/hr. Furthermore, the USDA soil survey report for the project indicates that the underlying soil for a large percentage of the project has hydrologic soils group rating of “D” or “C/D”. The geotechnical report and septic percolation testing have been attached to the SWPPP. 15. Sediment Traps and Sediment Basins are both called out in the narrative and plan set. Please verify which is being proposed. Please provide associated calculations and details as required by the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Blue Book). TGM Response: All references to sediment traps have been removed. Sediment basin calculations and topography have been added to drawing C102. 16. Update the plan set to include a Concrete Washout Area and its associated construction detail. TGM Response: A concrete washout detail has been added to the drawings. 17. Please revise the plan set to include the following details: • Sediment Trap or Sediment Basin TGM Response: See response to comment #15. • Rock Check Dam TGM Response: A Rock Check Dam detail has been added. • Bioretention Filter Forebay and Weir. Please review this with the landscape plan relative to soils and vegetation requirements that differ between the forebay and the filter area. TGM Response: Bioretention filter and forebay to be coordinated with landscape plans. • Extended Detention Short Wetland TGM Response: An enlarged plan of the extended detention ‘shallow’ wetland has been added to the drawings. 18. Please add the following items to the plan set. • Include mound septic system on proposed drainage plan C105. TGM Response: The mound septic system has been added to C105. • Silt sock detail on Sheet C102 needs to be revised to match the Blue Book. TGM Response: The silt log detail on C102 has been revised. • Indicate material staging area on plan. Please note this area must be on a stabilized surface. TGM Response: The material staging area will be indicated on the plans. • Add winter stabilization procedures to the plan set. TGM Response: Winter stabilization notes will be added to the plans. • Indicate stream setbacks on all plan sheets. Please verify this setback was determined in accordance with the Code of the Town of Ithaca and accounts for any steep slopes that may be present. TGM Response: The stream setback has been added to all applicable plans where the viewport and scale allows. Yes, all shown stream setbacks shown are in accordance with Town of Ithaca standards. 19. Identify the length of the tracking pads. TGM Response: The length of the tracking pads has been added to drawing C102. 20. Provide erosion and sediment control plan for phasing. TGM Response: A phased erosion and sediment control plan will be added to the drawings. 21. Contour labels need to be added to the drainage plan in the stormwater practices where they are not provided on the grading plan. It would be beneficial for the contours in their entirety to be labeled on the drainage plan. TGM Response: Contour labels have been added to the extended detention shallow wetland. 22. There appears to be a difference between the drainage plan and grading plan. Please review and update accordingly. TGM Response: Drainage plan and grading plan will be coordinated. 23. The demo plan incorrectly identifies which pipe is being removed at the western pond. TGM Response: The demo plan has been revised accordingly. 24. Please review the existing catch basins and proposed grading plan. There are numerous basins around the proposed field that will need adjustments. Please review these basins and with other site improvements. There appears to be conflicts depicted in the plan set. TGM Response: Notes have been added to the drainage plan indicating rim elevation adjustments to all existing catch basins. All conflicts with site improvements have been resolved. 25. Please identify how the existing field drains (labeled tile outlet) will be handled. TGM Response: Existing field drains will be daylighted into the proposed swale. A note has been added to drawing C105. 26. Update landscaping plans to identify native planting are required as mentioned in the SWPPP narrative. TGM Response: The landscaping plans will be revised accordingly. 27. The modeling of existing conditions must align with the post-conditions outlined in the 2003 SWPPP. This includes accurately representing the field conditions as pervious in the pre-condition per the 2003 SWPPP and now impervious for the post condition based on DEC’s current guidance. The ponds shall be modeled according to their post conditions in 2003 and incorporating any missing stormwater structures into the model. TGM Response: Below is a table summarizing the post-development peak discharge rates for both the 2003 McGovern SWPPP and the current CU GFR SWPPP. For the purposes of a pre- versus post-development comparison, the rates from 2003 SWPPP shall be considered as the pre-developed condition per the above Town review comment. As can be seen, the post-development peak discharge is attenuated for the 1, 10, and 100-yr storm events by the proposed stormwater management approach. The SWPPP narrative will be revised to consider the 2003 SWPPP post development runoff rates as the pre- development rates for the current project. 28. Please provide additional information supporting your design that water will be conveyed to the attenuation device. Current modeling indicates that the structures are overtopping. TGM Response: Regarding diversion structure #1, runoff that may surcharge out of the structure will be captured by downstream drainage structures. If for any reason those structures become plugged and are not able to function, then all runoff will be conveyed to the attenuation device via the overlayed flow path between fields 3 & 4. Regarding diversion structure #2, the HydroCAD model has been revised so that runoff is no longer surcharging. 29. There are numerous discrepancies between the plan set and the HydroCad calculations. Please revise the materials accordingly. The calculations were not reviewed in detail due to the discrepancies. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised to address these discrepancies. 30. Please add the filters to the hydraulic modeling to verify how these systems are acting during the larger storm events (are they overtopping, do the overflow catch basins handle everything, etc.). TGM Response: Both bioretention filters have been added to the HydroCAD model. 31. Diversion Structure 2 appears to be overtopping into the bioretention filter. Provide calculations for the wetland as described in Chapter 6 section 1 and 2 of the Stormwater Management Design Manual. Note stormwater wetlands must also meet the requirements of Stormwater Ponds. TGM Response: The HydroCAD calculations have been revised and diversion structure #2 no longer surcharges. Calculations have been added to volume 1 of the SWPPP. Earth Day, April 22, 2025 Re: Cornell’s Synthetic Turf Project – Testing Concerns and Minimum Requirements Dear Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Members, Cornell has repeatedly stated that PFAS testing for the proposed synthetic turf field will be conducted by the manufacturer, and that “independent third-party testing” will occur “prior to the turf leaving the manufacturer.” This language has not changed, despite public objections, and continues to raise serious concerns. ➤ Manufacturer-conducted testing is not independent ➤ Testing coordinated and paid for by Cornell—conducted before the turf even leaves the factory—is not independent Independent testing matters because numerous studies have confirmed the presence of PFAS in synthetic turf materials. In fact, TenCate/GreenFields’ own technical manual for one of its widely sold turf products—Pivot—explicitly states that it contains PFAS. We have submitted the manual to the planning board. If Cornell is using or considering that product, the public has a right to know. The Zoning Board should recommend that the Planning Board require Cornell to disclose the full technical manual of the specific turf products under consideration. Further, a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request revealed that both the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Town’s own engineer expressed concern over the project’s stormwater plan, as seen in the DEC’s request for updated modeling and the engineer ’s comment that permit approval is ‘not guaranteed.. Please see attached pdf. This is highly relevant, as stormwater is a direct pathway through which PFAS and microplastics from synthetic turf enter the environment. These substances are persistent, bioaccumulative, and harmful to both ecological and human health. If the Zoning Board is considering any approval or variance related to this project, it must require that Cornell commit to publicly transparent, independently verified testing on representative samples. At minimum, this should include: 1. Total Fluorine Testing (TF) using a sensitive method such as Combustion Ion Chromatography (CIC) establishes whether fluorine is present, a key indicator of PFAS 2. EPA Method 1633 on the same sample, following cryo-milling to capture extractable PFAS embedded in the plastic 3. Leaching Analysis (EPA Method 1312, SPLP) on the same sample, followed by LC-MS/MS (1633) → Assesses exposure risk via runoff and groundwater 4. Additional cryo-milling testing for polymeric PFAS not included in EPA 1633, such as PTFE (Teflon) and PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride), which are commonly used in synthetic turf systems and are not detectable through conventional PFAS methods If PFAS is detected in any of these tests, it directly implicates Cornell’s noncompliance with New York State’s Carpet Collection Program Law (Article 27, Title 33 of the Environmental Conservation Law), which restricts carpet-like products containing intentionally added PFAS. Synthetic turf qualifies as a plastic-backed, carpet-like product used for flooring. Please note that the new carpet law defines “Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS substances” broadly as “a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom,” a definition that aligns with the OECD’s international standard (ACS source). Detection of PFAS—using any of the scientifically valid methods described above—would indicate that Cornell’s proposed turf is not compliant with New York State law and that their public representations regarding product safety have been misleading. This is precisely why public oversight is non-negotiable. The testing proposed by Cornell to date—carried out by or under the control of the manufacturer—is not credible, not transparent, and not compliant. We need independent, publicly accountable testing to prevent PFAS contamination and microplastic pollution. We request that the Town of Ithaca rescind the Negative Declaration issued on March 18, 2025, pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 617.7(f), on the grounds that new information obtained via FOIL indicates substantial deficiencies in the environmental review—specifically, concerns raised by the NYS DEC and the Town’s engineer regarding flawed stormwater modeling and the possibility of permit denial. These concerns were not disclosed or addressed in the SEQR review, and the Negative Declaration cannot stand in light of this information. Respectfully submitted, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org Town of Ithaca March 24, 2025 ZBEN-25-1 Zoning Board of Appeals Energy Code Variance Application Status: Active Submitted On: 3/21/2025 Primary Location 201 Snyder Hill Rd Unit Carol Battisti Ithaca, NY 14850 Owner Carol Battisti 105 Remington Rd W Ithaca, NY 14850 Applicant Brian Buttner, R.A. 607-844-4601 adra@twcny.rr.com P. Box 306 5 Main Street Freeville, NY 13068 Internal Only-Review Tax Parcel No. 57.-1-8.63 Is Planning Dept. Approval Required? No Is Engineering Dept. Approval Required? No Is a GML-239 Review Required? Yes Type of Variance Ithaca Energy Code Appearance Date for Variance 5/27/25 Internal Tasks to be Completed Meeting Result (First Appearance) – Materials For GML-239 Were Sent 03/24/2025 Public Hearing Notice Was Sent – Neighbor Notification Letters Were Sent – 3/24/25, 2:05 PM ZBEN-25-1 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.com/#/explore/records/36894/details 1/9 Date Sign Was Picked-up – Material Packets Sent to ZBA Members – Applicant's Information Applicant is* Architect Is the primary point of contact for application different than the applicant?* Yes Name of Primary Point of Contact* Justin Kimball Phone Number* 607-592-2475 Email Address* justinkimball11@gmail.com If the applicant is NOT the owner, a letter/email from owner designating the applicant as agent or a copy of the contract with owner's signature will need to be provided. 3/24/25, 2:05 PM ZBEN-25-1 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.com/#/explore/records/36894/details 2/9 Description Brief Description of Variance Request* Interior renovations of the Lower Level apartment in this 1971 two-story residence can't feasibly conform to the current 2020 Residential Building Code and Town of Ithaca Stretch Energy Code.  The cost of further interior and exterior energy related alterations to achieve the minimum 12 point analysis stated in the Ithaca Stretch Energy Code would approach half the assessed value of the entire dwelling. The scope of insulation alterations and mechanical upgrades to full electric would also require substantial changes to the upper level apartment, also necessitating displacement of that tenant and additional loss of income when no changes to that apartment were planned as part of the original project.  As an architect, I believe the required upgrades under the TOI Stretch Energy Code constitute a Draconian approach to compliance when owners of older homes in the Town and City often don't have the funds to totally rebuild to current code requirements. In many cases, the cost implications of these requirements will force property owners to do nothing when partial or phased compliance wouild allow owners to make incremental improvements for the benefit of all.    Energy Variance Criteria Form 1. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance;* No 3/24/25, 2:05 PM ZBEN-25-1 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.com/#/explore/records/36894/details 3/9 Reasons: This is a 1971 residential, duplex dwelling of traditional construction with 8" concrete block foundation, 2x4 framed walls, concrete slab floor on th elower level and trussed wood roof. The exterior finish is wood clapboard with approximately 20% of wall area finished in brick vaneer. The walkout lower level basement apartment is also partially buried on this hillside lot. Both apartments are currently heated by two natural gas boilers feeding perimeter HW baseboard loops on each level. The architect has endeavored to incorporate incremental improvements in the building and enegry codes where reasonbly accessible, however total compliance with current codes short of demolitioning the existing residence and building new is not feasible.  In the course of assessing the lower apartment, the architect also discovered non-compliant double hung egress windows in both of the lower level bedrooms.  These windows will be replaced by larger casement-style units that satisfy current emergency egress pathways.  2. Has the applicant proposed to implement other energy or construction options, in place of the standard or requirement that is the subject of the variance request, that will result in the least amount practicable of additional greenhouse gas emissions? * Yes Reasons: As stated above, the lower level apartment will have substantial insulation added to the perimeter walls as identified on the drawings, both internally and externally where reasonable access is afforded. New LED light fixtures will replace all traditional fixtires on the lower level apartment. The existing gas clothes dryer will be replaced by an LG Heat Pump electric dryer with the mftrs estimated annual 30% savings $48.0 0). These improvements are expected to reduce natural gas and electrical consumption by up to 20%.   3/24/25, 2:05 PM ZBEN-25-1 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.com/#/explore/records/36894/details 4/9 3. Will the variance request result in a substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions if the request is granted? * Yes Reasons: I would temper my "Yes" above by the fact that no modifications are planned for the upper level apartment by the owner, however, the lower level apartment will be warmer in winter and cooler in summer with lower natural gas use.   4. Is the variance request unique to the building, project, or site and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or community? * Yes Reasons: I answer "Yes" because this house was compliant when it was new, but is now a victim of the times where residences are built to much higher standards. Unfortunately, this variance situation could be repeated many times over given the general age of many residences in this Snyder Hill neighborhood (and elsewhere in the county).  5. Is the requested variance the minimum necessary?* Yes Reasons: The architect has endeavored to ahieve code compliance where reasonably feasible in all areas exposed by the original interior demolition prior to upgrading intioer finishes.   3/24/25, 2:05 PM ZBEN-25-1 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.com/#/explore/records/36894/details 5/9 6. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? No Reasons: The difficulty in achieving total code compliance has to do with the age of the house (1971) and compliant construction of the day.  Affidavit The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submit this application requesting an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. By filing this application, I grant permission for members of The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town staff to enter my property for any inspection(s) necessary that are in connection with my application. I acknowledge, that completed applications are scheduled on a first-come first-serve basis and that all documents ideally be submitted forty-five (45) days advance of the proposed meeting date, together with the required application fee. Failure to do so may result in a delay in my hearing. Digital Signature* Brian R. Buttner, R.A. Mar 21, 2025 3/24/25, 2:05 PM ZBEN-25-1 https://ithacany.workflow.opengov.com/#/explore/records/36894/details 6/9 © Outlook Fwd: FW: Justin & Brian authorization to represent me & speak on my behalf re:201 Synder Hill Duplex From Justin Kimball <justinkimball11@gmail.com> Date Mon 3/24/2025 11:42 AM To Codes <codes@townithacany.gov> **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 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: justinkimball11 <justinkimball11@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, Mar 24, 2025, 11:39 AM Subject: FW: Justin & Brian authorization to represent me & speak on my behalf re:201 Synder Hill Duplex To: <justinkimball11@gmail.com> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: ca <carolbattisti@aol.com> Date: 3/24/25 11:36 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Justinkimball11 <justinkimball11@yahoo.com> Subject: Justin & Brian authorization to represent me & speak on my behalf re:201 Synder Hill Duplex 2025.03.24 Carol A Battisti 201 Snyder Hill Rd Ithaca NY 14850 To whom this may concern: I am the property owner of the duplex residence located at 201 Snyder Hill Rd Ithaca NY 14850. I hereby notify you that 1. Justin Kimball, property manager, of Promise Land Properties and 2. Brian Buttner, Architect, of ADRA Associates together act as my designated Property Manager and Architect for said property. As such, Justin and Brian have my full authorization to represent me and speak on my behalf regarding all decisions on the current work project at said property. Both are your point of contact for any communications going forward. Signed electronically, Carol A Battisti Promise Land Properties &Rentals LLC 50 Hillcrest Road Ithaca NY 14850 promiselandproperties11@gmail.com To whom it may Concern: As 100%owner and sole operator of Promise Land Properties I fully authorize Brian a.Buttner to act on my behalf in the appeal to zoning on 201 Snyder Hill Road.Please feel free to contact me at the above email address if needed. Thank you, Justin Kimball Promise Land Properties &Rentals LLC Date:March 21,2025 To:Town of Ithaca Codes and Zoning Dept Ref:Project Narrative- Request for Zoning Board of Appeals Energy Code Variance Review 201 Snyder Hill Road Residential Duplex To:BZA Board members: I,Brian R.Buttner,in my capacity as architect and representative for Promise Land Properfe'Shb'ffit the following narrative summarizing the status of the existing two apartment dwelling resid^fi&^^Wl Snyder Hill Road in the Town of Ithaca and hereby request for an Energy Variance. The Owners,after learning of some minor internal leaking around the sub-grade perimeter of the lower level apartment and relocating the tenant,they brought in their maintenance staff to remove the damaged drywall to determine the source and extent of the problem.Upon further inspection an outside Contractor,Anthony Todi with AGT Contracting,was hired to remove additional interior finishes, incandescent fixtures and older electrical wiring so newer insulation could be added to the original walls and ceiling.The Owner and Contractor soon realized the scope of work required would exceed $20,000 so the Contractor contacted ADR Associates to prepare a detailed set of drawings with the intent to comply with current building and energy code requirements to the greatest extent possible given the age of the building. APPLIED DESIGN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Architecture Interior Design Drawings,details and notes were completed to define the scope of work visible and proposed.While the original intent was to focus on interior construction upgrades including new finishes and LED lighting,it soon became apparent to the Contractor that the best way to prevent the return of water into the apartment was to lay a new footing drain around the north,west and south faces of the building. Once the Owner agreed to that course of action,the Architect suggested that a higher level of insulation compliance could also be achieved by installing at least 3”of rigid insulation board full height of the masonry wall plus install a layer of 1-1/2”rigid board on the inside face of the 2x4 frame wall up to the ceiling prior to reinstalling 1/2”gypsum wall board on all walls in this apartment.The resulting calculated R-value for the Lower Level frame walls is 19.88 (15.00 required)and R-20.34 for the insulated CMU walls (21.0 or 20+5 required)Note-Additional exterior rigid insulation was deleted where the brick veneer descends to the lower level walls,approximately 28%of total wall area. Two additional interior upgrades include installing two layers of 1/2”or one layer 5/8”Type X wall board on all lower level room ceilings and also applying one layer of 5/8”Type X wall board on the apartment side of the Mech/Boiler Room (the Owner has the option to install an additional layer of 5/8” Type X wall board on the Meeh Room side,however that is not required due to the total Btu input of the two boilers being smaller than required for a one-hour rated wall (400,000Btu).R Registered Architect Respectfully submitted, BrianR.Buttner,..A. ADR Associates P.O.Box 306 5 Main Street Freeville,NY 13068 T (607)844-4601 F (607)844-3310 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT -COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS Contents Page 1-Overview,Building Information Compliance Checklists for Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path Page 2 -Commercial Buildings Page 3 -Residential Buildings Compliance Checklists for Performance-Based Compliance Path/Whole Building Path Page 4 -Commercial Buildings Page 6 -Residential Buildings Overview The checklists contained in this document are intended to help applicant teams and municipal staff plan for and assess compliance with the Energy Code Supplement (ECS).Please attach any calculations or other materials needed to verify information entered in this document.Additional information can be found in ECS Section 601 Compliance Documentation. Only basic information is provided here;the full ECS document should be referred to for detailed requirements. In addition,the ECS Reference Manual is intended to help understand and use the ECS;it contains non-essential information such as background information and commentary. The Energy Code Supplement applies to new construction,additions,and major renovations as described in Section 202.1 Applicability.1 ) Section 202.2 Compliance provides additional compliance details for commercial,residential,and mixed-use buildings,including additions and major renovations. Previously planned enhanced requirements to the ECS went into effect January 1,2023.These changes are described in sections C404 and R504. ITHACAPropertyAddress: Building Information To be completed by applicant. This property is (check one box only,see definitions in ECS)[^Residential commercial The following compliance path will be used (check one box only)^Prescriptive Compliance Path/Easy Path^Performance-Based Compliance Path/Whole Building Path 1 In the Town of Ithaca version of the Energy Code Supplement,all section numbers identified in this document are preceded by "144-." Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 1 of 7 ENERGY CODE SUPPLEMENT -COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE PATH/EASY PATH -RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Projects must earn at least 12 points.ECS document should be consulted for complete requirements. Applicant fills out "points proposed"column.Code Enforcement Officer fills out "points awarded"column. Cate¬ gory Improvement Code Section > Points Available 3 Points ’reposed / Points Awarded Summary of Requirements EFFICIENT ELECTRIFICATION eei :Jeat pumps for space icating R502.2.1 6-10 o points for air source heat pumps. 10 points for ground source heat pumps. EE2 Seat pumps for service water heating R502.2.2 2 o i points for water heating systems that use heat 3umps. EE3 Commercial cooking electrification R502.2.3 6 o 5 points for electric cooking equipment in commercial kitchens.Prerequisite:no fossil fuel use in the building. EE4 Residential cooking and clothes drying electrification R502.2.4 2 Q 2 point for electric stoves and ventless heat pump clothes dryers.Prerequisite:no fossil feel use in the building. AFFORDABILITY IMPROVEMENTS All Smaller building/room.size R502.3.1 1-2 o Up to 2 points for smaller room sizes.Available for Hotel and Residential portions only. AI2 Heating systems in heated space R502.3.2 1 1 1 point for installing heating systems in directly heated spaces. AI3 Efficient building shape R502.3.3 1 1 1 point if exterior surface area divided by directly heated floor area is less than the maximum allowed value. AI5 Modest window-to-wall ratio R502.3.4 1 1 1 point for overall window-to-wall ratio less than 20%(individual spaces may exceed 20%). RENEWABLE ENERGY REI Renewable energy systems R502.4.1 1-6 0 Up to 6 points for on-site or off-site renewable energy systems. RE2 Biomass systems R502.4.2 5 o 5 points for biomass space heating systems. OTHER POINTS OP1 Development density R502.5.1 1 o 1 point for achieving sufficient development density on the building parcel.* OP2 Walkability R502.5.2 1 0 1 point if the building meets the walkability criteria.* OP3 Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces R502.5.3 1 -2 o Up to 2 points for installing electric vehicle parking spaces and related infrastructure.* OP4 Adaptive reuse R502.5.4 1 c>1 point for substantial re-purpose of existing building. OP5 Meet NY Stretch Code R502.5.5 2 2 points for complying with NYStretch Energy Code OP6 Custom energy improvement R502.5.6 1-2 1 Up to 2 points for reduction in energy use.m amative & TOTAL POINTS 4 *Note:A maximum of three points total may be earned for points OP1,OP2,and OP3 combined. Version 2.1 February 2023 Page 3 of 7 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. April 4, 2025 Lori Kofoid, Administrative Assistant IV 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: Energy Code Variance for 201 Snyder Hill Road, Tax Parcel #57.-1-8.63, Carol Battisti, Owner; Brian Buttner, R.A., Applicant. Dear Ms. Kofoid: 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 ©Department of Planning & Sustainability 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 folly 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 usefol to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 -Project and Sponsor Information Brian R.Buttner,Architect Name of Action or Project: Alterations to Existing Two Unit Dwelling (Lower Apt)-Battista-Kimball Residence Project Location (describe,and attach a location map): 201 Snyder Hill Road,Town of ithaca,NY Brief Description of Proposed Action: Project is primarily an interior Renovation project of the Lower Walk-out Apartment.Scope of work includes removal of existing gypsum wall board damaged by water infiltration through foundation.While apartment framing is opened up,Owner desires to improve insulation barrier where feasible, including adding rigid insulation to exterior walls below grade while a new footer drain is being installed in the spring of 2025.Insulation of the framed walls above the CMU foundation will also be increased.New LED lighting will replace older incandescent fixtures in the apartment.A one hour rated ceiling below the second level apartment will also be installed where there was previously no rated ceiling. In the spirit of energy efficiency,the old natural gas clothes dryer will be replaced with a new electric heat pump air dryer.The Mechanical Room on the same level as the apartment being renovations will be separated from the living spaces by a one hour rated wall.Energy and Building Code improvements will be implemented where feasible,however,these upgrades will not be able to bring the apartment and building up to current code Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Brian R.Buttner,R.A. Telephone:607-844-4601 E-Mail,adra@twcny.rr.com Address: P.Box 306 City/PO: Freeville State:Zip Code: New York 13068 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:Town of Ithaca Building Dept,and TOI BZA Board Approval NO YES 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action?-38 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed?0 acres c.Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor?38 acres 4.Check all land uses that occur on,are adjoining or near the proposed action: Urban Rural (non-agriculture)Industrial O Commercial 0 Residential (suburban) Forest ||Agriculture ||Aquatic I 1 Other(Specify): Parkland Page 1 of 3 SEAF 2019 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— 8.a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? b.Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed action? NO YES | ✓1 — 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: This residence was built in 1971 and was compliant at that time,however new regulations require homes to be substantially more NO YES — efficient. 10.Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? If No,describe method for providing potable water: NO YES —[✓) 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: NO YES — 12.a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? b.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)archaeological site inventory? NO YES!✓— — 13.a.Does 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? b.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!✓— Page 2 of 3 Applicant/sponsor/name : Signature: PRINT FORM Page 3 of 3 14.Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply: I I Shoreline I I Forest I I Agricultural/grasslands Early mid-successional Wetland Urban 0 Suburban I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? NO YES |— 16.Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan?NO YES — 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? IfYes, a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? IfYes,briefly describe: NO YES The proposed footer drains to draw water away from the foundation will be drained to a drywell downhill from the existing dwelling on the same parcel. 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water or other liquids (e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? IfYes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: NO YES — 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility? IfYes,describe: NO YES l/— 2O.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or completed)for hazardous waste? IfYes,describe: NO YES — /Tgrian R.Buttpef,R.A.Date;03/21/2025 "7 Title:Project Architect £25 Ithaca Lowe's 10 PM v Q*14850 Mylowg^Shop All Installations Q>Deals What can we help you find?Sign In Appliances Bathroom Building Supplies Flooring Spring Projects Appliances /Washers &Dryers /Dryers /Electric Dryers LG 7.8-cu ft Stackable Ventless Heat Pump Electric Dryer (White )Energy Star Certified Item #5982008 1 Model #DLHC5502W 4.1 v 42ShopLG .u — ®© +9 Key Features In 100+carts last week $1,749 00 $146 /month £■81 Suggested payments with 12 month special fina Ltd time.Learn How Additional Payment Options p®5 $109.11 with 18 monthly payments.Learn How 7$)Rebates Available Get $100.00 Off in Cart on Purchase of 2 items Offer is applied to eligible items in cart Learn More Offer ends 04/02/25 What We Offer Installation w/required $29.98 Install Kit "14 Hau!Away $50/ea O Protection From $154.97 Residential Commercial Check with your utility to verify eligibility &requirements for residential rebate programs. LG 7.8-Cu.Feet Stackable Ventless Heat Pump Electric Dryer (Black Steel )Energy Star Certified Stainless Steel j DLHC5502B item #65M948 1 Mode DLHC5502B :ENERGY STAR Mast Effie ent $840 in rebates vn Amount Upto $840 Program -reswente!« State IRA -Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates -NewYorkG? Buy on or After:November 25,2024 More Info f* Rebate amount displayed is maximum allowed for this product type.Actual rebate will be based onverifiedhouseholdincomelevel Rebate is available as point-of-sale offer at More Details v participating stores This is an income based program!.Please check your qualification with rebate or incentive provider. LG -DLHC4002* ...... Fuel Type 0:Electric Product Type :Electric Standard Ventless Laundry Center:No Combination All-in-One Washer-Dryer :No Additional Dryer Features 0: Time remaining display,Wrinkle prevention option Refrigerant Type©:R-134a (14300) Combined Energy Factor (CEF)0:9.3 Estimated Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)0:257 Estimated Energy Test Cycle Time (min)©:67 Drum Capacity (cu-ft)0:7.8 Height (inches)0:39.0 Width (inches)©:27.0 Depth (inches)O 32 25 ENERGY STAR Unique 100:3798661 UPC Codes:I 195174098479 §OPEN DOWNLOAD Heat Pump Technology 0:Heat Pump Vented or Ventless 0:Ventless Connected 0:No ENERGY STAR Certified :Yes Most Efficient 0:HS8I Most Efficient@2025 CB Model Identifier 0: ES_1118034_DLHC4002*_1 1132024111859.80232377 Date Available on Market 0:11/05/2024 Date Certified 0:11 /12/2024 Markets 0:United States,Canada Chapter 144- 3 Definitions MAJOR RENOVATION Any construction or renovation to an existing structure, building, separated occupancy, tenant space, or unit under consideration, other than a repair or addition, that meets these two requirements: [Amended 1-9-2023 by L.L. No. 1-2023] A. The work area exceeds 75% of the floor area, and B. The proposed work involves two or more of the following: A. Replacement or new installation of 50% or more of the rated capacity of the heating plant that serves the floor area. Changes to air distribution, exhaust, or air conditioning systems are not considered renovations to the heating plant. B. Construction that involves disassembly or uncovering of greater than 50% of the area of the above-grade portion(s) of the building thermal envelope that serves the floor area. C. Changes to lighting, including but not limited to new installation, replacement, relocation, or removal, of lamps, lighting, or other illumination fixtures throughout 50% or more of the floor area. Floor area that is not currently lit, and is not proposed to be lit, shall not count toward the 50% calculation.