HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2009-All
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 12, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates,
Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith,
Environmental Planner.
GUESTS PRESENT: Andy Zepp, Director, Finger Lakes Land Trust; Ron LeCain, LeCain
Environmental Services, Inc.; Stephen Wagner.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Discussion Regarding Proposed Conservation Easement for Ithaca College Wetland
Mitigation Area – Andy Zepp and Ron LeCain:
Jonathan gave a quick overview of the Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center project and the
context of the Wetland Mitigation Plan that is now before the Planning Board. Jonathan indicated
that the Wetland Mitigation Plan was required in order to replace wetlands that will be disturbed as
part of the Athletic & Events Center construction. [A description of the Wetland Mitigation Plan
and proposed conservation easement prepared by the Finger Lakes Land Trust is attached to this
meeting summary.]
Andy Zepp described the Finger Lakes Land Trust’s involvement in and discussions with Ithaca
College regarding the proposed conservation easement for the Wetland Mitigation areas, and
indicated that the Land Trust is asking the Town of Ithaca to be a co-holder of the easement for the
first five years, while the monitoring of the establishment of the replacement wetlands is in place,
after which the Town could become the sole holder of the easement. The Land Trust would work
with the Town and Ithaca College to draft the easement language, and would assist the Town in
developing and implementing a long-term monitoring program for the site. Andy added that as part
of this wetland replacement program, Ithaca College has also agreed to convey a permanent
conservation easement to the Land Trust on approximately 77 acres of natural woodlands in and
adjacent to Van Buskirk Glen, a County designated Unique Natural Area, located in the Town of
Newfield.
Ron LeCain explained the technical aspects of how the wetland mitigation areas would work, and
indicated that the areas selected are already wet areas and have good soil and topographic
conditions to allow for the successful establishment of the replacement wetlands. The Rich Road
and Raponi sites are former farm land and are dominated by non-native plants, so these are not
natural wooded areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) is responsible for the
permitting process for the wetland mitigation project, and will require a replacement ratio of 1.5 to
1 for the impacted existing wetlands. Approximately 2.77 acres of existing wetlands will be lost, so
the replacement wetlands will be 4.5 +/- acres.
2
Rich asked about the proximity of the wetland mitigation areas to adjacent residences. Ron
responded that this question came up at the Planning Board hearing, and that the wetland mitigation
area should slow and retain runoff and could result in drainage improvements for the adjacent
houses. Currently runoff leaves the site fairly quickly. With the new wetlands, the berm and
wetland vegetation will help to slow the rate of runoff. Rich asked about the size of the easement
areas, and asked what would happen if the replacement wetlands do not get established well. Are
the easement areas large enough to allow for expansion? Andy responded that the USACOE
monitors the permit for the wetland mitigation areas for five years. If they determine that the
wetlands are not being established or a larger area is needed, the USACOE could extend the
monitoring period and require additional mitigation measures, such as expanding the wetland area.
Jonathan added that the Planning Board could add its own conditions regarding the above.
Andy indicated that the Land Trust helps agencies establish easements like this, and that if it is an
issue, the easement boundaries could be further negotiated with Ithaca College. Andy added that he
is a little concerned about the proximity of houses to the Rich Road wetland area, but that he is
comfortable with the mitigation plan and that the easements appear to provide a reasonable buffer.
The total easement area is about 24 acres and will provide a permanent buffer between the Ithaca
College development and residences. Andy proposed that the Land Trust partner with the Town in
the easement agreement and that the Land Trust would development draft language for the
easement and provide a baseline documentation study of the wetland mitigation areas for future use
in monitoring and enforcement of the easement agreement, and that the Land Trust is willing be co -
hold the easement with the Town for an initial five year period, after which the Town would take
over the responsibility of holding the easement. The Land Trust’s other interest in this partnership
was to obtain the Van Buskirk Glen conservation easement from the College.
Rich asked what the long-term maintenance and financial implications of this might be for the
Town. Mike Smith responded that there is a small commitment of staff time for annual monitoring
and reporting, similar to the Ferguson agricultural conservation easement that the Town acquired.
This involves inspecting the site to ensure that the property is being used in compliance of the
easement restrictions. The site visit, report preparation and administration might take a half-day of
staff time each year. Jonathan added that if staff time is a concern, the Town Board could negotiate
a one-time payment from Ithaca College to cover the on-going costs of monitoring and overseeing
the easement. Andy indicated that the easement would allow uses such as trails, educational
activities and interpretive signs, subject to approval of the easement holder. Ithaca College students
could become involved in assisting with the monitoring of the wetlands and easement area. Rich
asked about attorney costs for reviewing the easement language. Jonathan indicated that the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review process allows for the Town to charge such expenses
to Ithaca College.
Jonathan indicated that the Planning Board is completing its review of the Supplemental EIS on the
wetland mitigation plan, and that perhaps the Town Board could discuss this proposal informally at
its study session on February 23rd. Rich agreed and said that he would bring this up at the Town
Board study session. The Town Board could then consider a resolution in support of the concept of
this easement agreement at its regular meeting on March 9th. Rich asked about potential liability.
Andy indicated that the easement holder has very little additional liability – Ithaca College stills
owns the property, and the Town only has management and oversight responsibilities.
3
Discussion Regarding Draft Scoping Document for the Carrowmoor Environmental Impact
Statement:
Rich indicated that he had reviewed the draft Scoping Document for the Carrowmoor proposal that
is before the Planning Board, and thought it looked pretty complete. Rich referred to the sub-title of
Carrowmoor in the Scoping Document as “A Carbon Neutral Community” and another similar
reference in the first paragraph of text on page 1, and wondered whether it is appropriate to assume
at this early point that it will in fact be carbon neutral. Jonathan indicated that the wording could be
changed to indicate that it is proposed as an energy-efficient, carbon neutral community with the
intent that it will be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rated. Rich added
that he hopes that the Environmental Impact Statement will address the issue of energy efficiency.
Jonathan referred to Section K on page 10 in the Scoping Document that includes an analysis of
energy resources. Rich referred to SectionVI. Alternatives, and said that he hopes the description of
alternatives to scale and magnitude of the development will have enough detail to help the Planning
board make decisions about the impacts of the development and to compare the impacts with a
smaller size development. Rich indicated that other than the points raised, the draft Scoping
Document looks good. Jonathan mentioned that the comment period on the draft Scoping
Document goes through February 27, 2009.
Discussion Regarding Work Plan Priorities for 2009:
Rich suggested postponing discussion on the 2009 Work Plan Priorities until the March meeting so
that other Committee members could participate.
Other Business:
Jonathan mentioned that the Planning Board has adopted its Statement of Findings regarding the
Cornell t-GEIS (transportation-focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement), and that
completes the Planning Board’s review of the t-GEIS. A copy of the Statement of Findings had
been distributed to the Committee in the mail-out. Rich said that it looked like the Planning Board
did a good job of preparing the Statement of Findings. It was agreed that the Committee could talk
about the t-GEIS at the next meeting as part of the Work Plan Priorities discussion to see if the
Town Board wants to do anything further.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MARCH 11, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Tee-Ann Hunter,
Town Board Member; Diane Conneman, Chair, Conservation Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of
Planning; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Stephen Wagner; Krisy Gashler, Ithaca Journal; Syl Kacapyr, WHCU
Radio.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Discussion Regarding Northeast Area Environmental Assessment of Lands Adjacent to
Sapsucker Woods:
Rich referred to the Northeast Moratorium – Possible Timeline (Feb. 23, 2009) that had been
prepared by the Planning Department. Herb indicated that the Committee needs to look at the
LeCain studies and the Northeast drainage study that the Town had done, as well as Mr. Lucente’s
consultant responses to the LeCain studies, in order to decide the most appropriate course of action
for the properties in the Northeast moratorium area. Herb mentioned several options that the Town
could consider, including conservation easements on parts of the properties, a Conservation Zone,
or possibly acquisition of some of the property in question. Rich asked what would be involved
with a conservation easement. Herb responded that this would involve negotiation with the land
owner to determine an appropriate price for obtaining a conservation easement that would restrict
development in the identified easement area. Herb added that the benefit of a conservation
easement is that it would permanently preserve a specific area, whereas a Conservation Zone does
not necessarily preserve the land - it allows development at a very low density. Rich wondered if
there would be opposition to extending the moratorium, which is set to expire in June 2009, in order
to provide more time to properly evaluate the preservation options for the Northeast area. Rich
noted that courts have said that a municipality should be making progress in order to extend a
moratorium. Rich asked what the status of the Town’s drainage analysis of the Northeast area is.
Peter responded that the Town’s drainage study did indicate that further development in the area
would make drainage conditions worse, but that it was not definitive. The Public Works Committee
is working on possible strategies to improve the drainage situation in the Northeast area.
Jonathan referred to the three preservation options in the LeCain report depending on the Town’s
preservation priorities and indicated that there is no single correct way of addressing the
development issue in that area. Peter suggested that a key consideration is how important is this
area in the Northeast in relation to the Town as a whole. Rich said that it is difficult to consider a
conservation easement because the Town has not talked with the land owner about this yet. Herb
suggested that the Committee start pursuing a Conservation Zone because time is running out on the
2
moratorium. Rich stated that there is enough information in the Town’s studies to preserve certain
parts of the Northeast area through a Conservation Zone.
Peter moved that the Committee should proceed on the assumption that the entire area in the
moratorium be rezoned to a Conservation Zone and that a draft local law to that affect be prepared
and provided to the Committee. Rich seconded the motion. Peter said that the Town Board could
then see what public comments would be made on a proposed Conservation Zone. The motion was
approved unanimously.
Follow-up Discussion Regarding Scenic Resources:
Jonathan indicated that the Committee had previously discussed doing some further analysis of
scenic views in the Town and asked for further direction from the Committee. Herb indicated that
the Conservation Board did a lot of work on scenic views in “Saving Ithaca’s Views” and wondered
whether the Town could pass a law saying that any action in a view identified in the report would be
classified as a Type I action. Sue responded that staff’s observation is that more work on the scenic
view analysis needs to be done in order to get to the point where specific measures can be adopted
by the Town. The Committee asked staff to report at the next meeting on a possible work program
and costs to conduct further analysis of scenic views and to prepare a draft resolution
recommending that the Town Board give interim recognition to the top-ranked views identified in
“Saving Ithaca’s Views” and supporting further analysis of those views by Planning staff.
Discussion Regarding Work Plan Priorities for 2009:
Jonathan summarized items on the work plan list (Feb. 5, 2009) and indicated that a number of
items had been completed, including a recommendation on the proposed Carrowmoor
Development, the Planning Committee’s involvement with the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan,
and the Cornell t-GEIS. Rich indicated that he would like to have the Committee discuss housing at
an upcoming meeting, especially in regard to how the Committee should approach proposed
development proposals as they come up. Tee-Ann added that the Town needs to take into
consideration what capital improvements are necessary in order to support new development (e.g.,
sidewalks, trails, transit). Herb suggested that an agenda item to update the Committee on the work
of the county-wide housing trust and affordable housing fund could be scheduled at a future
meeting. Rich mentioned that he has been involved in discussions regarding gas drilling in the
Marcellus Shale area and that this may be something the Committee should get involved in at some
point.
Confirmation of 2009 Meeting Schedule:
Rich referred to the Proposed 2009 Meeting Schedule and asked if Committee members are okay
with the schedule. No objections were voiced.
Other Business: None.
Executive Session:
3
Peter moved going into executive session to discuss the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real
property where publicity would substantially affect the value thereof. The motion was seconded by
Rich and was approved unanimously.
The Committee left executive session at 6:15 p.m. and resumed the regular meeting. No actions
were taken during the executive session.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF APRIL 8, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Diane Conneman,
Chair, Conservation Board; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of
Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Stephen Wagner, Bill Sonnenstuhl, Larry Fabbroni, Krisy Gashler.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Follow-up Discussion Regarding Scenic Resources:
Jonathan summarized the suggested work plan for follow-up work by the Planning Department
regarding scenic resource protection as outlined in his and Sue Ritter’s memo, dated April 2, 2009.
Much of the work on this analysis would be done by a summer intern with minor oversight by
Planning staff. Sue went over the cost estimates for conducting this work and indicated that the
main costs would be the hiring of a summer intern at about $5,000 and the purchase of software
(GIS Spatial Analyst) at about $2,040. All of these funds are available in the approved Planning
Department and Software Budget lines. The Committee agreed that the proposed work plan looks
good. Jonathan indicated that the work would begin around the beginning of June.
Rich asked the Committee to look at the draft resolution regarding a “Recommendation to Town
Board Regarding Follow-up for Scenic Resources Inventory and Analysis”. Rich suggested a
change in wording in the first “Resolved” clause to delete the words “top ten” (prior to “views”) and
to add the words “among the” (prior to “significant views”) both in the second line. The Committee
agreed with those revisions. The adoption of the revised resolution was moved by Rich and
seconded by Peter. The resolution as revised was approved unanimously. The approved resolution
will be forwarded to the Town Board as a recommendation by the Committee.
Discussion Regarding Northeast Area Environmental Assessment of Lands Adjacent to
Sapsucker Woods:
Rich referred to the memo prepared by Planning staff (April 3, 2009) regarding “Recommendation
to Town Board Regarding Northeast Area Environmental Assessment of Lands Adjacent to
Sapsucker Woods – Options for Area Affected by Moratorium”. Jonathan summarized the options
outlined in the memo, including pursuing the current Lucente plan for Briarwood II that was before
the Planning Board when the moratorium was adopted, pursuing a modified plan for Briarwood II
taking into account the information in the LeCain study as well as the information in Mr. Lucente’s
consultant responses to the LeCain study, negotiate a conservation easement on portions of the
parcels in the area of the moratorium, enact a Conservation Zone on some or all of the parcels in the
moratorium area, or acquisition of portions of the land affected.
2
Herb indicated that a conservation easement would require the mutual consent of the Town and the
land owner. A Conservation Zone on the other hand would be imposed on the land owner by the
Town. Rich recognized Larry Fabbroni, representing Mr. Lucente. Larry said that imposing a
Conservation Zone is an all or nothing approach. Larry indicated that the developer has revised the
stormwater plan to address issues raised in the Town’s Drainage Study of the northeast area. Larry
reminded the Committee that Mr. Lucente’s plan for Briarwood II included the donation of 25 acres
of open space to the Lab of Ornithology, which would preserve much of the land having higher
ecological value. Larry added that as suggested in Option #2 in the Planning staff memo, further
modifications to the Briarwood II plan could be made to address other issues discussed in the
LeCain study, including keeping a biological corridor open. Larry added that staff had already
talked to the developer when this was before the Planning Board about preserving additional open
space on the northern part of the development by clustering some of the houses. This could also be
pursued in a modified plan for Briarwood II. Larry indicated that Mr. Lucente is willing to talk
with the Town about such modifications. Larry mentioned that Cornell University and Mr. Lucente
have also been talking about the possibility of land swaps, but so far these discussions have not
been successful. Larry concluded that if the Town decides to pursue the Conservation Zone
approach, that legal action would likely follow.
Rich said that it would be possible to create a map showing a possible biological corridor through
the development area and additional areas that should be preserved. Larry mentioned that he has
heard from people who would like to live in town houses, and that could lead to further
modifications in the Briarwood II plans. Rich indicated that the Town is willing to discuss options
with Mr. Lucente.
Peter said that our consultant gave the Town advice regarding preservation of the area, and the
Town can follow that advice. Peter wondered whether acquisition of the property is possible.
Jonathan responded that would depend on the price. Herb added that the Town would have to
discuss this with the land owner before we would know if acquisition would be possible. Rich
suggested that the Town has to do something in the near future because the moratorium is scheduled
to expire soon. Peter indicated that a conservation easement might be okay, but would also require
further discussion with the land owner. Peter added that with respect to comparing the other options
outlined in the memo (pursue the current or modified Briarwood II plan vs. enacting a Conservation
Zone), he prefers pursuing a Conservation Zone. Herb suggested that it might be possible to get
more information on each option and discuss them further, and that the Committee could wait
another month before recommending a course of action to the Town Board. Susan Brock indicated
that the developer would not be ready to move ahead immediately with the current Briarwood II
plan upon the expiration of the moratorium because there are some conditions that still remain that
would need to be completed before returning to the Planning Board for further approval. Peter
supported the idea of having more time to work out a solution, but added that at some point, there
will be no more time.
Rich asked for a further explanation of the second paragraph in the staff memo regarding the
Conservation Zone option. Jonathan showed the Committee an overlay that he had prepared that
showed the LeCain study classifications of ecological value superimposed on the parcels within the
moratorium area. Jonathan explained that there are a number of areas identified in the LeCain
report as having low or low to moderate ecological value, including the majority of the Cornell
parcel, and suggested that if a Conservation Zone approach is pursued, that consideration be given
to excluding some of the lower ecological value areas from a Conservation Zone. Jonathan added
3
that the Cornell parcel is not included in the Unique Natural Area (UNA) designated by the
Tompkins County Environmental Management Council.
Bill Goodman asked what the Town needs to consider to defend the adoption of a Conservation
Zone. Susan responded that such a rezoning should not be arbitrary or capricious and that such a
rezoning should be consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Bill asked why the area in
question was not rezoned to Conservation Zone when the last rezoning revision was done by the
Town. Herb responded that the Town did not know some of the things that we know now. The
Town has conducted a drainage study of the area as well as the LeCain ecological study. Herb
indicated that the drainage study identified fragipan as a limitation in the soils in the area. The
ecological study identified new information about birds in the area and plant habitats and species
that were not known before. Jonathan added that the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan
showed additional areas proposed for “Conservation/Open Space”, and while many of these were
rezoned to Conservation Zone, some like the Coy Glen area have not yet been rezoned because
there has not been time to study them sufficiently.
Rich asked whether extending the moratorium is an option the Committee could consider. Susan
said that the Committee should go into closed session to seek the advice of legal counsel on this
matter. Rich indicated that the Committee has a draft law that was provided by the Attorney for the
Town regarding the adoption of a Conservation Zone and that there are a number of other options to
consider. Larry indicated that Mr. Lucente would not oppose an extension of the moratorium but
that he would oppose a Conservation Zone. Larry also indicated that he was glad to hear the
Committee talking about options such as working with the developer to work out an acceptable
solution.
Rich asked if there was any other business to discuss before going into closed session. Jonathan
indicated that there are a couple of things. Rich suggested discussing those other business items
before going into closed session. The Committee also agreed that after the closed session no further
action would be taken at this meeting regarding lands in the Northeast area.
Other Business:
Jonathan handed out copies of the Route 96 Corridor Management Study – Draft Technical Report
# 4 and indicated that he would try to set up a presentation on this for the next Planning Committee
meeting.
Sue reported on the Cornell Water Project that had been approved by the Planning Board recently.
Cornell officials had indicated to her and the Engineering Department that they are looking at the
possibility of modifying the water pipe route which would require going back to the Planning Board
for further approval. Sue indicated that the proposed modification would require closing the East
Ithaca Recreation Way for the duration of the construction of the pipe in the area of the Recreation
Way, and she wanted the Committee to be aware of this possibility. Jonathan mentioned that the
Recreation Way is heavily used both recreationally and for commuting. Herb agreed and said that
many runners use the path. Herb suggested putting up a barrier and signs during the construction to
make sure that people do not enter the trail while it is closed for construction.
4
Closed Session to Seek Legal Advice from Attorney:
Rich moved to go into closed session to seek the advice of legal counsel. Peter seconded the
motion. The Committee voted unanimously to go into closed session.
The Committee came back into open session at 5:44 p.m.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF MAY 14, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Tee-Ann Hunter,
Town Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement;
Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Ed Marx, Pam Mackesey, Stephen Wagner, Larry Fabbroni, Krisy Gashler,
Syl Kacapyr, William Sonnenstuhl, Adrian Williams, Pat Dutt, Marie Harkins, David George, Petra
Hepburn, Genie Hurme, Cynthia Brock, Don R. Crittenden.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements:
Jonathan announced that the Town has been notified that we will be receiving a grant from the NYS
Department of Agriculture & Markets for the purchase of development rights on the Indian Creek
Farm on Trumansburg Road. The Town will be receiving $205,224 in State funds, and the Town
will fund $66,708 as the local share.
Route 96 Corridor Management Study:
Jonathan introduced the Route 96 Corridor Management Study by reading from the Memorandum
of Understanding signed by the participating agencies who agreed to conduct the study, including
Tompkins County, Towns of Ithaca and Ulysses, City of Ithaca, TCAT and Ithaca-Tompkins
County Transportation Council (ITCTC). The purpose of the study was to valuate traffic impacts
associated with development in the corridor from the Village of Trumansburg to City of Ithaca and
look at techniques that could be implemented to mitigate these impacts, including evaluation of how
a nodal development pattern with mixed uses, enhanced transit service, access management, and
other transportation system improvements, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, could mitigate
the traffic impacts of projected growth in the corridor.
Ed Marx reported on the details of the study, and indicated that consultants were hired to do the
technical evaluations of the study regarding land use and transportation. The study looked at a
scenario of concentrating 75 percent of the projected development in nodes, one at the Cayuga
Medical Center, the other in Jacksonville. Projections for growth came primarily from Cornell’s T-
GEIS and the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Ed mentioned that a residents survey was conducted
as part of the study, which found that a nodal development pattern scored higher than continued
sprawl. The benefits of nodal development include better use of transit, a better sense of
community for residents, preservation of outlying natural areas and agricultural land, preservation
of scenic character, among others. Ed added that traffic studies were done for existing and
projected conditions on Route 96, and the traffic consultants concluded that although there are
problems of congestion in the morning peak commuting hour, the conditions overall are not bad.
2
Ed indicated that Draft Technical Report #4 was prepared by the participating agency
representatives on the Technical Review Committee, and put the consultant’s recommendations into
a municipal perspective as to how recommendations could be implemented. The Town of Ulysses
Comprehensive Plan update is almost completed, and the Town and City of Ithaca have begun
updating their Plans. Technical Report #4 includes recommendations for each municipality to
consider, including things like zoning changes, infrastructure improvements, transit enhancements,
etc. The concept of concentrating development into nodes came from the Tompkins County
Comprehensive Plan.
Rich said that the study showed the benefits of nodal development in the corridor, but what about in
other areas of West Hill outside of the corridor? Are there county-wide efforts to look at the
cumulative affects of growth beyond the corridor? Ed responded that the corridor study limits were
identified by the participants early in the process, and could not include detailed evaluation of areas
outside of the study limits. Jonathan added that this is something that the Comprehensive Plan
Committee will have to look at. Rich indicated that the premise of nodal development is that a node
should have a major employment center in order to make it work. Jonathan mentioned that the
Cayuga Medical Center has become a major employer in the area, is one of the largest employers in
the County, and has expanded significantly since the early 1990’s. Ed added that villages are the
traditional form of a node, and typically included a mix of uses with schools, houses of worship,
post offices, etc. The Medical Center already has good transit service, and the study recommends
building on the node that is already forming there. Peter suggested that some reduction in traffic
could result in a node because of the opportunities for using other forms of transportation and
having some employees live near where they work. Rich asked what happens when there is already
density in a node like at the Medical center, but not many people work there? Ed said that the study
looked at all of these factors together and concluded that nodal development gives people a range of
choices in the future for living, shopping, and neighborhood amenities.
Herb indicated that the 1993 Town Comprehensive Plan talks about development on West Hill, and
that it was a remarkably good document for predicting what would happen on West Hill. Herb
added that the Comp Plan said that growth would occur on West Hill because of the large amount of
land available. Herb added that East Hill and South Hill have their own nodes that are developing.
Rich said that he found the 1993 Plan contradictory in its statements about West Hill development,
and that in the 1990 Residents Survey, many people felt threatened by increasing development.
Peter indicated that he is confused about what a node is. Is Varna a node? Ed responded that he
would consider Varna a hamlet, which tends to have a lower density than a true node, less
population, and less services. Ed added that villages tend to have an area of about one square mile,
and walkable radius of about one-half mile. A suitable density for a node is a minimum of four to
five dwelling units per acre, and a population of about 2,000.
Rich opened the meeting up to further questions and discussion by the audience. (Audience
participants are named only where they were identifiable). Question/comment from Marie Harkins:
Nodal development is a great concept. East Hill Plaza is a good example. But doesn’t see the same
being true for the Route 96 Corridor. Marie also disagrees with the characterization that traffic
problems on Route 96 are not so bad. Ed reiterated that the traffic problems are limited to the
morning peak hour.
3
Jonathan indicated that the Museum of the Earth and Lakeside Nursing Home are already in the
corridor, and that a node is already developing in that area. Marie mentioned that she has seen
school projections, which say that not much growth is projected in the school district. Ed responded
that much of the housing is developing outside of the corridor and County because of the lower
costs of housing farther out. Ed added that population growth in the County has been steady over
the past decade, growing at a rate of about one-half percent per year. The study’s high end
projection was growth of one percent per year.
Peter said that most people living in a node around the Medical Center would still shop at Wegmans
rather than at a small, local store. A West Hill resident agreed that people in the node would still
travel to Ithaca for services. Housing could serve some workers at the Medical Center, but small
services will not be successful because there would be too much competition from larger businesses
in the City. Another West Hill resident indicated the need for coordination of municipal plans.
Tee-Ann asked how realistic is the development of a node at the Medical Center? Would the Town
have to aggressively pursue it? Would the node serve those already living in the area? Ed
responded that the Town cannot control how fast a node would develop, but it could encourage its
development through zoning, density bonuses, and other mechanisms suggested in the study. Ed
added that the County’s Housing Needs Assessment showed that there is a need for 4,000 new
housing units in the next ten years, and the County and municipalities have to find places to
accommodate this needed development. The City has estimated that it could accommodate up to
1,000 additional housing units. Ed added that there only limited other opportunities for such
housing to be developed, including the Town of Ithaca and Town of Lansing in terms of large
enough numbers to make a difference. The Chamber of Commerce has stated that the lack of
housing for workers in new businesses locating in Tompkins County is one of the biggest problems
they face. Cornell has also recently indicated the same concerns for attracting professors and other
employees to the area. Rich said that the assumption of the Corridor Study is that growth will
happen in this area, but that is not necessarily the only assumption.
Tee-Ann said that she has noticed an increase in the number of vacant stores and retail
establishments in the area, and wondered how re-development of these spaces could take place? Ed
responded that this is largely happening in the City, and that the City’s Comp Plan update will have
to address this issue. Rich asked whether nodal development outside of the City would adversely
affect the City? Ed reiterated that the City can only accommodate up to one-quarter of the needed
housing, so it has to located in other areas as well.
A West Hill resident commented that there is a proposal for 800 new dwelling units on State Street
in the City. Jonathan indicated that Cornell has announced that it will be adding 100 undergraduate
students per year, and the type of housing proposed on State Street would most likely be targeted
toward students, not the general population. Pat Dutt indicated that she is working with Town and
City officials to have a discussion about growth issues. Pat also asked whether there are examples
where nodal development has worked? Ed mentioned New England as having some good
examples. Ed added that the Environmental protection Agency is drafting new guidelines for Smart
Growth that point to the need for nodal development to reduce vehicle trips and provide other
environmental benefits.
Rich suggested moving on to the topic of West Hill development in general so that there would be
time for discussion.
4
Discussion Regarding Letter from Marie Harkins, West Hill Community Group, Regarding
West Hill Development:
Rich referred to the letter from Marie Harkins (“First Do NO Harm”) that was referred to the
Committee by the Town Board, and asked if any of the residents from West Hill would like to make
any comments about this to the Committee (the letter is attached to this meeting summary as part of
the record of the meeting). Marie Harkins Summarized her points in the letter and indicated that the
Town’s 1993 Comprehensive Plan was good, and that hopefully the update of the Plan that is
currently underway will involve the public. Marie asked whether the Town’s Plan update will
involve the City of Ithaca. Jonathan indicated that a Town rep is on the City’s Comp Plan
Committee, and a City rep is on the Town’s Comp Plan Committee. Marie added that the West Hill
community needs to have an opportunity to comment on growth and its impacts on the area. Marie
said that she is not opposed to development, but some of the recent development on West Hill
seems like sprawl. Marie added that it is not clear whether the proposed Carrowmoor development
is really a node, or whether it would continue the sprawl pattern on West Hill. Peter asked what it is
that she wants the Town to do. Marie responded that the Town needs to complete a Comprehensive
Plan update before additional large development projects are approved on West Hill. Pat Dutt
mentioned that both the Carrowmoor and Holochuck proposals on West Hill are intended to be high
end developments, and she was not sure that they would meet the real housing needs of the area.
Jonathan mentioned that the Holochuck proposal is actually being proposed as middle-range in cost,
and the Carrowmoor proposal, although mostly in the expensive range, would have at least ten
percent of the units available for households around the median income range as a result of work
that the Town Board did on drafting a proposed local law for that development.
Rich opened the meeting up to further questions and discussion by the audience. (Audience
participants are named only where they were identifiable). Question: What other projects are
proposed on West Hill? Jonathan’s response: There is the Cornell site behind the Fire Station, but
the Town does not have a specific proposal yet. Question/comment: People cannot afford to rent in
Ithaca and have to commute from long distances to jobs. Herb’s response: New developments have
a spill-down effect, so that people who live in Ithaca moving into higher end units free up moderate
priced units. The private market will dictate what kind and price of units will be built. Rich:
Government can help to subsidize lower cost units. Herb: Carrowmoor could help to free up
moderate prices units elsewhere. Rich: Not sure about that. Bruce: Couldn’t find affordable
housing to move into the area when hired by Town. Most reasonable housing in the area is not
affordable.
Because time was running out, the Committee decided to continue discussion on this subject at the
June meeting.
Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Extension of the
Northeast Moratorium on Development:
Rich indicated that the end of the Northeast moratorium is coming up and that the Town Board is
considering extending the moratorium another six months until the end of the year in order to
provide more time to work with the landowners on possible solutions and to consider the results of
the environmental and drainage studies that were done. Peter asked about the County’s advisory
comments about the moratorium extension. Jonathan responded that the General Municipal Law
5
referral was sent to the County Planning Department more than the required 30 days prior to the
public hearing. Bill Sonnenstuhl encouraged the Planning Committee to support the extension of
the moratorium. Larry Fabbroni stated that Mr. Lucente, one of the affected landowners, supports
the extension of the moratorium. Herb indicated that the Town has received written confirmation
from both of the affected land owners that they are supportive of the extension of the moratorium.
Moved by Bill Goodman, seconded by Peter Stein, the Committee unanimously approved a
recommendation to the Town Board to extend the Northeast moratorium through December 20,
2009.
Other Business: None.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Possible agenda items include continuation of discussions regarding the Route 96 Corridor
Management Study and the West Hill letter from Marie Harkins and consideration of a request from
Salvatore and Rosalind Grippi regarding the possible rezoning of their property on Trumansburg
Road containing the Hayts Chapel and Schoolhouse.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JUNE 11, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Tee-Ann Hunter,
Town Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS PRESENT: Krisy Gashler, Syl Kacapyr, Pat Dutt, Genie Hurme, John Rancich, Mary
Russell, Monty Berman, Deborah Homsher.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Continuation of Discussion Regarding Letter from Marie Harkins, West Hill Community
Group, Regarding West Hill Development:
The Committee continued discussion from the last meeting regarding the letter from Marie Harkins
about West Hill concerns. Rich asked Pat Dutt if she had specific comments. Pat suggested that the
Town should impose a moratorium on development on West Hill, while reviewing West Hill
growth as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, and mentioned the following: (1) there has not
been a study of the overall West Hill area – the Route 96 Corridor Study looked at only a portion of
West Hill; (2) there has been an increase in traffic on Route 96, especially at the bottom of the hill
entering the City; (3) there is the potential for environmental degradation (e.g., if Carrowmoor is
built); and (4) there are potential safety issues (e.g., with traffic). Rich asked Pat what should be
done if a moratorium is adopted? Pat suggested that a traffic study of all roads on West Hill could
be done, including spur roads and connecting roads to see how traffic growth would affect all roads
on West Hill. Rich asked how much an areawide traffic study like this might cost? Jonathan said
that it is hard to estimate something like that, but it would cost at least $100,000 and probably more
than that. John Rancich added that the traffic study for his proposed Carrowmoor development is
costing about $20,000.
Pat indicated that at the last Planning Committee meeting, some people felt that nodal development
is sprawl by a different name. Pat was also concerned about the Town of Ithaca road work at
Helen’s Way that went ahead without community input, and that this is another reason for a
moratorium. Pat then reported that the West Hill neighborhood associations are holding a meeting
with City and Town officials on June 23rd at Town Hall.
Monty Berman, a founding member of EcoVillage, indicated that he has concerns about the
proposed Carrowmoor development, including whether the project would truly be an
environmentally friendly one and the cost of housing. Genie Herme indicated that her concern is
that wealthier people will move out of the City to live in Carrowmoor, leaving poorer people living
in the City. Landlords in the City would then be forced to lower rents.
2
Mary Russell, attorney for the Carrowmoor proposal, stated that she had prepared a memo for the
Planning Board in which she outlined how agricultural resources in and around Carrowmoor could
be preserved. John Rancich added that the design of Carrowmoor would have minimal
environmental impact and that farming actually has bigger environmental impacts than a
development like Carrowmoor.
Herb said that the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprhensive Plan included goals for growth on West Hill,
and that the Comprehensive Plan Committee is contemplating the development of nodes on West
Hill, South Hill and East Hill, and that West Hill is not being singled-out for development. Herb
made the following additional points: that development will continue in the Town, and the Town
Board has to figure out where development can best occur, while protecting natural and open space
areas; that it is best to have nodal development near the edges of the City and where there are
opportunities for public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; that there is much information on
traffic county-wide through the ITCTC; that individual traffic studies might have to be done for
specific development proposals; that there have been several public meetings regarding the Route
96 Corridor Study; and that we need to talk about real, not perceived issues, such as what impacts
nodal development would have (beneficial and detrimental). Herb concluded that Town officials
have not been having private meetings with developers. Rich said that he had attended a private
meeting with a developer. Rich observed that there seems to be a disconnect between land use on
West Hill and the Town’s current zoning laws and suggested that the zoning laws should catch up
with what is happening today.
Jonathan described how the 1993 Comprehensive Plan did describe the benefits and disadvantages
of development on West Hill, and that the Anticipated Land Use Patterns Map in the Plan did factor
in growth on parts of West Hill, as evidenced by the Suburban Residential land use category.
Jonathan indicated that the rezonings (e.g., for Multiple Residence and Planned Development
Zones) on West Hill have been consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the Zoning Map
intentionally did not show new areas for higher density housing, with the intent that the Town
Board would look at specific proposals and determine whether a specific proposal would meet the
objectives of t6he Comprehensive Plan. This is what happened with EcoVillage, Linderman Creek
and the Overlook at West Hill. Jonathan added that the Town was sued over Linderman Creek and
Overlook at West Hill, and the courts supported the Town’s decisions as rational, consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, not arbitrary, and not spot zoning.
Peter suggested that the Town should develop a way to interact more regularly with residents to
hear concerns such as have been voiced at this meeting. Peter then said that if a moratorium is the
best way to study growth issues on West Hill, then a moratorium might be appropriate. Bill said
that he understands the concerns regarding traffic and that more development on West Hill will
likely add to the traffic. Bill indicated, however, that he is not sure that a moratorium is the right
way to study the issues that have been raised by West Hill residents. Bill added that he has studied
the literature on moratoria, and that a moratorium does not seem like the right tool. Bill suggested
that discussion of West Hill growth issues probably belongs at the Comprehensive Plan Committee
discussions of the Plan update, and that the Comp Plan Committee might end up recommending
certain zoning changes or specific Comp Plan policies. Rich asked what happens in the interim
while the Plan update is in progress, and asked whether the update of the Comprehensive Plan
provides the legal justification for a moratorium. Mary Russell stated that she was a member of the
Town’s Codes and Ordinances Committee during the Zoning Revision process and pointed out the
following: the Comprehensive Plan described the desirability of mixed uses; the Planned
3
Development Zone approach gave the Town Board the authority and ability to control how
development happens; when the Zoning Revisions were adopted, large areas, especially on West
Hill, were down-zoned from one house per acre to one house per seven acres in the new
Agricultural and Conservation Zones; and growth was channeled to those areas near the City served
by public sewer and water. Mary added that in regard to the Carrowmoor site, development under
the current combination of agricultural and residential zoning could have more of an impact in
terms of vehicle trips than the proposed Carrowmoor development.
Herb said that getting residents involved early in the development process is desirable, and that he is
delighted to see the new Northeast neighborhood association having been organized. Herb added
that the Town has to use the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning that is currently in place and has to
balance the rights of property owners with the interests of residents. Herb stated that the Town
would probably get sued if it adopts a moratorium on West Hill, and that the Town would probably
lose. Rich mentioned that he thinks that the Town is boxed in by its current zoning and that the
Town has been stretching the zoning on West Hill. Jonathan explained that zoning is a lot more
than just a map, and that the Multiple Residence and Planned Development Zones give the Town
Board broad discretion to apply the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives to rezone areas that
are not currently shown for higher density development . Herb suggested that the Town would need
a strong reason for a moratorium like in the Northeast, where a moratorium was adopted with the
specific purpose of studying the ecological and storm water characteristics of a specific area, and
that so far none of the West Hill residents have provided specific evidence that the current
development proposals have significant problems.
Bruce asked what kind of moratorium would we be talking about? Would it prohibit development
of single-family homes and small subdivisions? Pat responded that Maria Harkins’ letter was
referring to the need for a moratorium on large developments, not on single-family houses. Pat
reiterated the disadvantages of West Hill development that were outlined in the 1993
Comprehensive Plan, including traffic and potential loss of agricultural land. Pat feels that no more
agricultural land should be lost. Pat added that the 1993 Plan did not anticipate the current
recession that we are in, and wondered whether the 4,000 new housing units that were identified as
being needed over the next ten years in the Tompkins County Housing Needs Study is still relevant.
Pat added that Cornell has enacted a hiring freeze. Pat also stated that there has been no
cooperation between the Town and City regarding growth issues, and that City and Town reps need
to come together. Herb stated that there have been discussions between Town and City officials on
these issues.
Tee-Ann indicated that she thought that a moratorium is a valid tool to apply during a
Comprehensive Plan update, and that the proposed Carrowmoor development is the largest
development in the Town. Bill suggested that there is a de facto moratorium because both large
development proposals that are before the Town (Carrowmoor and Holochuck Homes) are
preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). John Rancich indicated that the Carrowmoor
EIS will take about nine months to complete. Bill continued that the Planning Board will have to
evaluate the impacts of both projects in the EIS processes and then, Carrowmoor will have to go to
the Town Board for a public hearing and rezoning – so nothing will happen for about one year
anyway. Bill reiterated that it does not seem that a moratorium on just West Hill would be valid – it
probably would have to apply town-wide. Bill agreed that traffic is a serious issues and needs to be
carefully evaluated with any large-scale development proposal, but that a moratorium is not the
right way to do it.
4
Peter said that he does not know the legal aspects of moratoriums, and that the Town Attorney has
not been asked to weigh in on this. Peter reiterated that the current development review process
does not allow for residents to have a seat at the table to discuss these kinds of issues, but that
residents do have the obligation to present coherent complaints for the Town to react to.
John Rancich mentioned that his land is being farmed by an old-time farmer who uses pesticides
and herbicides – not organic. John added that current zoning on the Carrowmoor property gives
him the right to build up to 330 dwelling units – these would be on large lots covering the entire
tract of land. This would be considered sprawl. John suggested that he would like to build
something that is more environmentally friendly, that is clustered and that provides mixed uses.
John mentioned that it took two or three years of working with Town officials to draft a Planned
Development Zone for the Carrowmoor development.
Tee-Ann indicated that West Hill is under-served in infrastructure, such as trails, sidewalks, and
public transit, and that the Town may not have the resources to provide the infrastructure needed to
accommodate large-scale development on West Hill – this is what needs to be addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan update. Mary Russell mentioned the need for 4,000 housing units cited in the
County Housing Needs Study.
Herb suggested that the Town needs more opportunities for conversations like these to occur. Herb
added that the other hills in the Town are built up with the exception of areas around East Hill
Plaza. Herb added that Cornell is becoming more open to making land available for housing and
that Cornell also owns land on West Hill that could be available for development.
Pat said that there is no major employer on West Hill. Jonathan indicated that the Cayuga Medical
center certainly is a major employer on West Hill and is one of the largest employers in the County.
Herb reiterated that housing should be built near major employers and close to the City. Herb
added that the Town proposed $1 million of Federal Stimulus funding for a sidewalk along the
entire length of Route 96 from the Hospital to the City line. Rich mentioned that the moratorium in
the Northeast was based on known issues, including drainage and ecology. Rich said that a
moratorium could also be used to look ahead to the future of growth on West Hill. Jonathan
reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan update is where these discussions rightly should be
occurring. Jonathan pointed out that Cornell’s proposal for the East Ithaca Village has the potential
to have a much larger impact on the Town than any of the current West Hill proposals. Jonathan
added that if the Town wants to think about a moratorium, it should think town-wide, not just West
Hill. Herb mentioned that both Cornell and Ithaca College are adding more undergraduate students
over the next few years and that could have significant impacts on housing and the community in
general.
Route 96 Corridor Management Study:
Rich asked what the Committee would like to do about continuing discussion regarding the Route
96 Corridor Study, given that the allotted time for the meeting was almost up and that Peter was not
present at this point in the meeting. The Committee agreed to defer discussion on the Route 96
Corridor Study until the next meeting.
Other Business:
5
Jonathan updated the Committee on the status of the Grippi’s request for rezoning of their property
on Trumansburg Rd. The Grippi’s have listed their property for sale, and have indicated that they
will wait on their rezoning request until a buyer comes up with a specific proposal for using the site.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Possible agenda items include continuation of discussions regarding the Route 96 Corridor
Management Study and the West Hill letter from Marie Harkins.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF JULY 20, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Tee-Ann Hunter,
Town Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement.
GUESTS PRESENT: Syl Kacapyr, Pat Dutt, Genie Hurme, Mary Russell, Monty Berman, Helen
Gibson, Stacey Shackford, Stephen Wagner, Joan Lawrence, Pam Mackesey, Don Crittendon.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Continuation of Discussion Regarding Letter from Marie Harkins, West Hill Community
Group, Regarding West Hill Development:
The Committee continued discussion from the last meeting regarding the letter from Marie Harkins
about West Hill concerns regarding development. Rich indicated that the Committee heard
comments from West Hill residents at the last two meetings, and asked if any residents had any
more comments before the Committee starts to discuss the issues. Pat Dutt said that she would like
to respond to Pat Leary’s response to her comments that were emailed around. Rich indicated that
it really would not be productive to have responses to responses – this could go on forever, and
asked if Pat Dutt could summarize her additional concerns. Pat discussed the issue of widening
roads vs. increasing transit opportunities, which was addressed in Pat Leary’s response. Pat Dutt
wondered what additional public transit would be like, and indicated that she probably would not be
able to use transit herself. Rich suggested that Pat Dutt send an email to the Town Board with her
responses to Pat Leary’s comments. Pat handed out an outline of her responses to the Committee.
Genie Hurme stated that she is concerned with drainage issues at Hook Place, and mentioned that
the proposed Carrowmoor development is located above Hook Place. Jonathan indicated that the
Town ‘s storm water regulations address water quality and keeping the rate of runoff after
development no more than pre-development conditions. The Carrowmoor Draft Environmental
Impact Statement will include a complete storm water analysis and storm water management plan.
Another resident stated that Hook Place has had drainage problems in the past, and that it has gotten
worse as the area builds up. It was suggested that the Town and City look at drainage issues
together. Rich said that he would ask the Town’s Public Works Committee to discuss this drainage
issue. There was brief further discussion regarding erosion problems along the sides of Elm Street
because of the steep banks, and other drainage issues in the area.
Rich brought the discussion back to the Committee and asked the Committee to focus on the key
issues on West Hill and decide what to do. Rich added that it appears that traffic id the over-
arching issue that he has heard discussed by residents. Rich wondered whether the traffic analysis
in the Route 96 Corridor Management Study could be assimilated with other traffic data for other
parts of West Hill to get a more complete picture. Peter agreed that traffic is the major issue on
2
West Hill and that additional development will make it worse. Rich indicated that a possible
moratorium on development is the other key issue on West Hill that residents have discussed, and
asked what justification the Town would have to adopt a moratorium, and what would be
accomplished if a moratorium was implemented? Rich added that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan
update is underway, which should be addressing the issues that have been discussed on West Hill,
and wondered how to best have that happen. Rich indicated that so far the Committee has had no
legal input from counsel regarding a moratorium, but that his understanding is that courts have said
that a moratorium may be appropriate while a comprehensive plan update is being prepared. Peter
supported obtaining input from the Town’s attorney regarding a moratorium. Rich suggested that
the Town would need to obtain traffic data to evaluate the impacts of development on West Hill,
and mentioned that there will be traffic data and analysis in the Carrowmoor and Holochuck
Environmental Impact Statements, and there is information in the Route 96 Corridor Management
Study. Rich asked how that traffic information could be put together and who could do it?
Peter stated that it would be important to understand some of the basic conditions, such as whether
roads could be widened to handle more traffic, how would nodal development relieve some of the
traffic impacts, and how can West Hill accommodate additional housing units? Rich asked whether
the Town should prepare a traffic study specifically to look at development potential on West Hill
and what the associated traffic impacts might be. Jonathan indicated that the Comprehensive Plan
Committee will be looking at all of these issues as they get further into their work on the Plan
update, and reiterated that the Carrowmoor, Holochuck and Route 96 Corridor Study all will have
useful traffic information to help the Town decide what levels of development are appropriate.
Bill Goodman stated that he is not sure that there is a significant traffic issue on West Hill and
wondered whether the Town has comparative information for other areas of the Town such as East
Hill. Jonathan responded that the Town’s Transportation Plan (adopted in 2007) includes traffic
data for East Hill and South Hill. Jonathan suggested that the Committee wait until the
Carrowmoor and Holochuck Environmental Impact Statements are completed, and see what the
Planning Board does with those developments.
Bruce asked what a moratorium would cover? How long would it last? Would it prohibit issuance
of any building permits, or would it only apply to large developments? What would the
justifications be? Bruce suggested that if the Committee is going to ask the attorney for legal input
on a moratorium, it would make sense to have a proposal for her to look at. Rich agreed.
Herb indicated that there is a lot of traffic data available, including traffic counts for corridors
entering the Town, and suggested that the data would show that West Hill is no more congested
than other parts of the Town. Herb added that we also need to look at standards for congestion and
compare traffic volumes with those standards of congestion. Herb mentioned that the Route 96
Corridor Study recommended adding a third bridge in the City over the Inlet to relieve traffic
approaching Route 13 from West Hill, but that this is something the City has not supported. The
Town would have to discuss this option with the City.
Tee-Ann indicated that the Route 96 Corridor Study’s traffic analysis included counts that were
done on two days in March, and that does not seem like enough to get a good sample. Tee-Ann
asked whether the Planning Board might hire its own consultant to review the traffic analyses in the
Carrowmoor and Holochuck Environmental Impact Statements. Jonathan responded that the
Planning Board does have the authority to do this and to charge the costs of hiring a consultant to
3
the applicants, but would have to decide whether that would be necessary. Peter suggested that it
would be a good idea to integrate all of the traffic data for all projects on West Hill and project the
cumulative impacts, and agreed that it would be a good idea for the Town to hire its own consultant
to review this data. Jonathan indicated that this is something that the Planning Board could decide
to do in regard to the current development proposals before them, and that each of the applicants
was required to incorporate the traffic of the other known development proposals in the area. Herb
added that none of the traffic studies done so far have shown that there is a significant traffic
problem on West Hill.
A resident indicated anecdotally that people have difficulty getting out of their driveways out onto
Route 79 during rush hour. It was also mentioned that people have trouble crossing the road to get
their mail because there are too many cars speeding along. Other problems mentioned included that
there are no sidewalks on some roads in the West Hill area. Tee-Ann asked how the Committee
might gather additional anecdotal information similar to what the Committee is hearing. Jonathan
mentioned that the Town’s Transportation Plan included a resident’s survey that covered
information like this. Pat Dutt asked whether a survey of West Hill could be done by the
Association. Rich thought that a survey would have to be scientific and probably would have to be
done by the Town, which would take a long time.
Rich indicated that the meeting time was running out, and the Committee did not have a chance to
discuss the Route 96 Corridor Study, and asked what the best way to move forward on the West Hill
development issues would be? Bill suggested that the Comprehensive Plan Committee will look at
traffic impacts of current and potential developments and make recommendations regarding zoning.
Jonathan concurred, and suggested that the Planning Committee look at the Town Transportation
Plan because a lot of the information and issues discussed by the Committee and West Hill residents
are addressed in the Transportation Plan.
Route 96 Corridor Management Study:
Rich indicated that he would draft language for a possible recommendation regarding the Route 96
Corridor Study for the Committee to consider at the next meeting.
Other Business: None.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
Because of vacation schedules, the Committee decided to cancel the meeting on Thursday, August
13, 2009, and to re-schedule the August meeting for Monday, August, 24, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Possible agenda items include continuation of discussions and a possible recommendation to the
Town Board regarding the Route 96 Corridor Management Study, and continuation of discussion
regarding the West Hill letter from Marie Harkins.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF AUGUST 24, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Town Supervisor; Jon Bosak, Planning
Board; Ellen Baer, Planning Board; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.
GUESTS PRESENT: Syl Kacapyr.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements: None.
Route 96 Corridor Management Study:
Rich indicated that he and Jonathan met to discuss draft language for a possible resolution regarding
the Route 96 Corridor Study for the Committee to consider. Rich indicated that the draft resolution
includes language to the effect that the Route 96 Corridor Study is a useful tool that can be
considered by participating organizations as they consider planning options for the corridor. Rich
added that the Committee had previous discussions regarding the Study, invited Ed Marx from
Tompkins County to present the findings of the Study, and heard from residents at several meetings
at which the Study was discussed by the Committee. Rich mentioned that he is hesitant to use the
Route 96 Study as a blueprint for how the Corridor should develop, but that it does present one
vision for how development could be managed on that part of West Hill.
Peter asked about the last resolved in the resolution and whether there could be stronger language
about recommending further traffic study to supplement the traffic data and analysis in the Route 96
Corridor Study. Rich responded that it is his hope that this issue can be discussed further with the
Town Board, that there are opportunities to evaluate the growth scenarios and traffic situation in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update, and that he personally would like to see
additional traffic analysis regarding the nodal development scenario in the Route 96 Study before
the Comprehensive Plan update recommendations come out. Bill and Peter asked similar questions
regarding what is the County’s role in a study like the Route 96 Study and how inter -municipal
planning studies like this usually approach issues like traffic. Jonathan explained that the County’s
role is to assist municipalities with coordination of inter-municipal studies like this, and that the
County coordinated a similar corridor study on Route 13 in Dryden. Jonathan added that the
participating municipalities (i.e., City of Ithaca, Town of Ithaca and Town of Ulysses) were partners
in the Study with the County, and all participants contributed to the cost of the Study. Jonathan
mentioned that he personally believes that further traffic analysis should be done after the
Comprehensive Plan Committee has looked at potential growth in the Town, how the three possible
nodes in the Town might develop on West Hill, South Hill and East Hill, as part of the
environmental impact analysis of the Comp Plan update. Herb added that there was considerable
traffic analysis in the Route 96 Corridor Study and that there is additional traffic data available from
the County. Jonathan added that the Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan, adopted by the Town
2
Board in 2007, includes much useful traffic and transportation data and analysis that can be used in
conjunction with the Route 96 Study.
Bill made a motion to adopt the draft resolution as written. Peter seconded the motion. The
Committee unanimously adopted the resolution regarding the Route 96 Corridor Study as drafted
(the adopted resolution, dated August 24, 2009, is attached to this meeting summary).
Continuation of Discussion Regarding West Hill Development:
Rich indicated that he would be comfortable holding off on a recommendation regarding a
moratorium on West Hill until the Town Board talks about a supplemental traffic study relative to
the Route 96 Corridor Study. Rich added that West Hill residents have attended several Committee
meetings and expressed their views in support of a moratorium. Bill mentioned that he had seen a
follow-up letter from Pat Dutt in the newspaper. Herb said that Pat’s letter was similar to the
previous letter that the Committee saw, and that there was erroneous information in the letter – Pat
said that the Town has put walkways on the back burner – Herb indicated that this is not true and
that the Town’s Trail Committee is in fact working on possible trail rights-of-way on West Hill
which residents could be helpful in obtaining the necessary r-o-w’s. Rich indicated that the
rationale for a moratorium would be whether some additional study would be done to evaluate
growth or traffic on West Hill. Peter agreed. Rich suggested that the Planning Committee should
get direction from the Town Board on the need for a moratorium, and if the Town Board wants to
pursue a moratorium, the Town Board could send it back to the Planning Committee for further
input. Rich suggested that the Town Board could discuss a possible West Hill moratorium as well
as additional traffic study relating to the Route 96 Corridor at the Town Board’s study session in
September.
Bill asked what traffic studies would be done? Rich mentioned that two Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS) are being done for proposed projects on West Hill, but that it is not clear how
these will be coordinated or how they will relate to the recommendations in the Route 96 Corridor
Study. Jonathan indicated that his preference would be to have the Comprehensive Plan Committee
come up with a vision of how the Town should grow, not just focusing on West Hill, but all areas of
the Town, including the three potential nodes on East Hill, South Hill, and West Hill. Jonathan
added that these are long-term growth issues, but that West Hill residents have expressed concerns
regarding short-term project proposals with Carrowmoor and Holochuck Homes. Jonathan added
that the EIS’s for Holochuck and Carrowmoor are required to look at the cumulative, combined
impacts of these projects and how they relate to the analysis and recommendations in the Route 96
Corridor Study. Jonathan recommended that the current development issues on West Hill and the
long-term growth issues of the Town overall be addressed separately, and that the EIS’s for the two
developments will be sufficient to evaluate their impacts on the West Hill transportation system.
Herb stated that the Town of Ithaca completed its Transportation Plan, which includes a lot of
traffic data and analysis on a town-wide basis, and that the Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation
Council (ITCTC) compiles traffic counts annually. Rich indicated that he is not envisioning a
massive traffic study. Herb stated that the Route 96 Corridor Study includes extensive traffic data
and analysis, and that he does not see the need for additional traffic analysis at this time. Herb
added that the Town’s 1993 Comprehensive Plan anticipated growth on West Hill in many ways
similar to how it has actually occurred. Peter mentioned that the big difference now is the
Carrowmoor proposal, which is much larger in scale than anything else that has happened on West
Hill. Jonathan reiterated that EIS’s are being done for both Carrowmoor and Holochuck Homes,
3
and that the traffic analyses on those EIS’s can be combined with the information in the Route 96
Corridor Study to give the Town a very good idea of how West Hill would be impacted. Herb
added that the County predicts that growth in surrounding areas will occur regardless of what
happens in the Town, and that corridors through the Town will continue to get more traffic – this is
highlighted in the Route 96 Corridor Study. Peter asked what we can do with the traffic data and
analysis in the Carrowmoor EIS to make sure that it is evaluated in the overall context of West Hill.
Rich stated that growth is not a foregone conclusion, and that the Town has to look at the capacity
of its transportation systems and make decisions accordingly.
Ellen asked how many employees work at the hospital? Several people responded that there are
about 800 to 900 employees. Rich wondered if Ellen’s question was based on the assumption that
employees at the hospital would live in a node around the hospital if one developed. Ellen indicated
that she was just thinking that there is already a large employment base there. Rich asked the
Committee to conclude its discussion for this meeting regarding West Hill development and see
what happens at the Town Board study session.
Discussion Regarding Gas Drilling:
Rich indicated that he would like the Committee to discuss the gas drilling issue which is being
studied by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and that Herb had sent a
map around of parcels in Tompkins County on which leases for gas drilling or extraction exist.
Herb indicated that the Tompkins County Council of Governments (TCCOG) has been discussing
the gas drilling/hydro-fracking issue and that the Towns of Dryden and Ulysses have passed
resolutions providing recommendations to DEC regarding the drilling issue. Herb mentioned that
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being conducted by DEC will include a comment period
(probably longer than 30 days), and that TCCOG is hoping that municipalities will be prepared to
respond to DEC during the comment period regarding such things as what authority should
municipalities have over gas drilling operations, limiting weight loads of trucks on Town roads,
regulation of driveway cuts, and withdrawal and disposal of the water used in the fracking process.
Herb added that the Town should be prepared to send DEC an inventory and maps of
sensitive/significant natural areas in the Town where gas drilling activities would be harmful. Herb
mentioned that Town staff is working on such an inventory, which could also be used to identify
and designate possible “critical environmental areas” to highlight the importance of some areas in
the Town. Herb added that the Town Board had asked him to write to our Congressional
representatives in support of strengthening the water quality laws.
Peter asked what is expected to come out of all of this. Herb responded that DEC will go through
all of the comments received during the EIS review period and respond to those comments. DEC’s
decisions on revising the regulations over gas drilling could be affected by comments that are sent
in. Jonathan explained how the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) regulations only
apply if the Town has some regulatory authority over an action (such as site plan approval or special
permit). Rich asked what role the Planning Committee could play. Herb said that the Committee
could review the inventory and map drafts that staff will be preparing to provide input. The
Committee agreed.
Discussion Regarding Nodal Development (or Development Focus Areas):
4
Rich asked the Committee to review the “white paper” on nodal development that had been
distributed in the mail-out packets and be prepared to discuss it at the September meeting.
Other Business: None.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee agreed to cancel the meeting on Thursday, September 10, 2009, and to re-schedule
that meeting for Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. Possible agenda items include an
update on mapping and inventory work regarding sensitive/significant natural areas in the Town
relative to the gas drilling issue and follow-up discussion regarding nodal development
(development focus areas).
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Sue Ritter,
Assistant Director of Planning; Darby Kiley, Planner; Tee-Ann Hunter, Town Board Member;
Jon Bosak, Planning Board Member; Hollis Erb, Planning Board Member.
GUESTS PRESENT: Krisy Gashler, Taryn Thompson, Arno Selco, Bill Sonnenstuhl, Stephen
Wagner, Trish Page, Adrian Williams.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Member Comments/Concerns/Announcements:
Rich indicated that the Planning Committee had passed a resolution at the last meeting regarding
the Route 96 Corridor Study, including a recommendation that the Town Board discuss the
possibility of further traffic study of that area, and this may be on the October 19 th Town Board
agenda or on the October 1st Town Board Budget meeting if there is time.
Presentation by Residents of Northeast Area Regarding the Applicability of Extending the
Conservation Zone in the Sapsucker Woods Area:
Rich introduced residents of the Northeast area in the Town to present their ideas and comments
regarding the possible extension of a conservation zone in the Sapsucker Woods area, including
Bill Sonnenstuhl (Bill S.), Adrian Williams, and Trish Page. Bill S. started with a history of
development in the Northeast area, including the Briarwood I development that is now pretty
much completed and Briarwood II, which is Mr. Lucente’s current proposal. Bill S. mentioned
the drainage problems that residents in the area have been experiencing, and that the Town
Public Works Department has been studying this issue and looking at possible solutions. Bill
stated that the 1993 Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan proposed the entire Sapsucker Woods
area as a conservation zone, and that the Town decided during the revisions to the Zoning
Ordinance that only Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary should be rezoned to conservation zone. Bill S.
suggested that Northeast residents probably would have provided comments on the conservation
zoning proposal at that time, but may not have been aware of it. Residents did provide
comments about the Briarwood II proposal to the Planning Board at public hearings, and then
brought their concerns to the Town Board after the Planning Board granted preliminary approval
to the proposed development. The Town Board adopted a moratorium in the Northeast area and
hired LeCain Environmental Services to study the ecological resources in the area surrounding
Sapsucker Woods. The Final LeCain Report was completed in 2008. The Town Board extended
the moratorium several times to allow time to review the results of the study and look at
preservation options. Bill S. went on to say that the developer prepared alternative development
options during this time and discussed these alternative plans informally with Town officials.
2
Bill S. mentioned that during the spring of 2009, the developer and Cornell discussed the
possibility of swapping the Briarwood II lands with Cornell land, but that no solutions have been
achieved yet. Bill S. indicated that the purpose of their presentation to the Committee is to
examine the results of the LeCain study and what they mean. Stephen handed out copies of a
memo on this subject that had been previously distributed to the Town Board (dated October
2008) along with an Executive Summary of that memo (both are attached to this meeting
summary).
Adrian began with a discussion of the LeCain study and suggested that the idea of extending the
conservation zone onto the Briarwood property has not been fully discussed by the Town yet.
Adrian mentioned that the developer had prepared revised development plans and discussed
them with Town staff. Adrian referred to the LeCain study as an independent study that included
several options, with the first option prioritizing the conservation of the entire study area. Adrian
referred to several key observations in the LeCain study, including the need to preserve a strong
buffer around wetlands, fragipan in the soils having limitations for development, the presence of
regionally and locally scarce plant species, the need to preserve the local biodiversity, and the
continuity of the study area with Sapsucker Woods, Monkey Run and Fall Creek. Adrian went
on to refer to the bird study done by LeCain, which indicates the need to preserve a large
undisturbed area for nesting. Adrian mentioned that development would create more edge area
around any remaining open space and increase the number of cats and other predators as threats
to the bird population. Adrian went on to say that the LeCain study recommendations are
consistent with the designation of some of the area as a UNA (Unique Natural Area) and the
County’s designation of this area as important in the Natural Features Focus Area study.
Rich asked why the UNA designation does not extend all the way to the southern boundary of
the Lucente property. Sue indicated that the UNA boundaries were determined by Nancy
Ostman and Robert Wesley using aerial photos and were not very exact. Bill S. said that he has
a letter from Ostman and Wesley to the County EMC saying that the UNA 2000 revision shows
the UNA going back to the surrounding house lots.
Peter indicated that at a recent meeting with Cornell officials, the developer showed a revised
sketch plan for Briarwood II that the developer said addresses 85 percent of LeCain’s
recommendations. Adrian responded that the developer’s revised sketch plan is not consistent
with conservation of the area. Bill S. added that after Trish talks about the hydrology of the area,
it will be clearer why development would not be consistent with conservation of the natural
features in the study area. Rich said that at a recent meeting with representatives from the Lab of
Ornithology, Charles Eldemire indicated that the Sanctuary lands are already at the low end of
sustainability – that was the first time he had heard that statement, and it raises questions
regarding any further development around the Sanctuary lands.
Trish presented observations about wetlands and hydrology of the study area. Trish indicated
that the most important point is that the Northeast neighborhood has already come before the
Town Board numerous times with complaints about the existing drainage problems. Trish
mentioned that as a landscape architect, she can say that the most important limitations in the
study area are the soils – this area has some of the worst soils for development in the Town.
Trish showed a soils map of the area indicating that much of the study area consists of Ellerie -
3
Erie (Era) soils (dark green on the map), which according to the Soil Survey is not suitable for
residential development. Trish explained that this soil contains a fragipan layer under the surface
that is very dense and very slowly permeable – the fragipan results in water setting on top of the
soil or sitting within the top layer of the soil. Trish referred to the lighter green areas on the map,
which indicate better soils, and that most of the lighter green area has already been developed.
Trish then explained that there are three levels of wetland regulations: NYS DEC (Department of
Environmental Conservation) wetlands, which are 12.4 acres in size or larger; ACOE (U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers) wetlands, which are federally regulated; and local wetlands, which
can be regulated by municipalities if they adopt regulations. Trish added that the wetlands in the
study area are identified as ACOE federally-regulated wetlands and total about 9 ½ to 10 acres.
Trish explained that wetlands are delineated by three factors: soils, plant species, and presence of
water. Rich mentioned that he had talked with the Attorney for the Town, who indicated that the
Town has wide latitude in regulating wetlands with proper justification.
Trish then discussed the importance of buffers around wetlands and indicated that wetlands are
sensitive to changes in hydrology. Trish added that studies show that wetland buffers protect
wetlands from adjacent land uses and provide habitat for wildlife. Trish mentioned that
stormwater retention ponds are meant to hold water and are not meant to function as wetlands.
Stephen mentioned that wetland buffers filter out suspended solids and that construction should
not infringe on buffers. Trish indicated that the Briarwood II development would require
extensive removal of woodland, including the removal of trees from areas that would be used for
houses, retention basins, swales, roads and other development elements. Trish said that the
development would negatively affect the wetlands by adding sedimentation and altering the flow
of water into the wetlands. Trish said that she did a quick calculation and it looks like about 50
percent of the development area would have impervious surfaces, increasing the likelihood of
flooding. Trish added that the wetlands might lose some of the water they currently receive
because the development would require water to be re-channeled.
Rich asked how the addition of a conservation zone to the study area achieve the desired results
of protecting the wetlands and other natural features. Bill S. responded that a conservation zone
would achieve part of what residents want to see, including helping to protect the wetlands. Bill
S. indicated that the residents would prefer to see no development, and that is why the residents
are working with Cornell and the developer to see if there are other options to developing this
area, such as a land swap, making other land available for development. Bill S. added that even
if a conservation zone is added to the Briarwood II area, he would still want to see a land swap if
it can work out. Bill S. mentioned that the LeCain study indicated that a buffer of between 100
and 300 feet is needed around wetlands, and that it appears that some of the retention ponds on
the Briarwood II proposal are within 100 feet of a wetland.
Rich opened up the discussion to the Committee. Bill Goodman (Bill G.) asked how many lots
could be built on the Briarwood II site under a conservation zone. Jonathan responded that there
could be about 7 lots, and that they could be clustered onto certain areas of the site. Rich added
that each lot could have two dwelling units, so there could be a total of 14 units. Bill G. asked
how many dwelling units are shown in the revised Briarwood II sketch plan. Bill S. responded
that the revised plan shows 62 units on 31 lots, each with a duplex. Bill G. asked if the Lab of
4
Ornithology is interested in taking over the open space in the Briarwood II development. Arno
responded that the Lab is not interested in taking over the responsibility and liability for the
stormwater ponds that would be included in the open space lands. Peter indicated that the main
question for the Town Board will be: should the conservation zone be extended to some or all of
the study area? Peter added that a conservation zone would not prohibit development, but it
would limit development. Peter said that the current conservation zone provides limited
protection for things like tree cutting. Peter said that there have been discussions in Town
committees to amend the wording of the conservation zone to better address tree cutting and tree
preservation. Stephen said that it is ironic that the Town of Ithaca is the only municipality in the
County that has a conservation zone, and that the question of the effectiveness of tree
preservation within the current conservation zone should not be relevant to the decision of
whether to extend the conservation zone. Peter said that he heard about the deficiencies in the
conservation zone regarding tree preservation about six months ago and wondered why it has
taken so long to address this. Sue indicated that another issue that is unresolved is the donation
of the open space land in Briarwood II to the Lab of Ornithology – the Lab has still not said
whether they would accept the land.
Rich indicated the need to decide on the conservation issues in the study area soon because it is
not clear if the current moratorium on development can be extended again. Rich mentioned that
the Attorney for the Town has indicated that if a rezoning is based on sound environmental
information and analysis, a rezoning can be justified. Rich added that in his mind, rezoning to a
conservation zone in the study area is not off the table. Rich described three options that the
Town can pursue: a land swap, rezoning to a conservation zone, or a revised development plan –
any of these are still possible or some combination of the options. Arno wondered whether there
is an entity that could buy the whole Briarwood II property. Rich suggested that the Committee
take up the question of whether to recommend a conservation zone to the Town Board at the
October meeting. Tee-Ann asked what would happen if the adjacent land in Dryden is
developed. Peter said that we cannot control the Dryden situation – only what happens in the
Town of Ithaca.
Discussion Regarding Gas Drilling:
Darby distributed copies of draft maps that she had prepared showing a number of categories of
significant or sensitive natural features and areas in the Town, and referred to a list (inventory) of
resources for Towns concerned about gas drilling (from TCCOG). Darby indicated that staff
was looking for input from the Committee on these maps that would be sent to NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC) when the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
gas drilling regulatory process is made available for public comment. Darby added that she had
contacted the GIS analyst at the Tompkins County Planning Department to find out whether the
County has prepared any similar maps for municipalities, and the answer was that no
municipalities have asked the County to do any such mapping yet. The Committee reviewed the
maps, including Land Use; Water resources, UNA’s and CEA; Parks, Easements, and Other
Important Areas; Steep Slopes and Erodible Soils; and Important Soils and Ag Districts.
Peter asked whether a composite map could be prepared that summarizes all of the significant
areas shown on these maps. Rich asked what other things the Town could do to have some
5
impact on how gas drilling will occur in the Town. Jonathan mentioned that the Town Boards in
Dryden and Ulysses had adopted resolutions asking DEC to give more authority to
municipalities regarding the regulation of gas drilling. Issues related to the impact of heavy
trucks on roads, driveway cuts, etc. are being handled by others. Tee -Ann suggested that the
County become involved in the mapping and inventory process so that there is a common
approach in the comments to DEC. Tee-Ann also suggested that the Town make a strong
statement to the State regarding the negative impacts that gas drilling could have on the Town.
Jon Bosak said that a valuable map that everyone is interested in seeing is where gas is located,
but that is not available. Bill suggested adding pending conservation easements on the map of
easements, such as the Indian Creek Farm that received approval from the State for a grant for
purchase of its development rights (PDR).
Other Business: None.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The Committee agreed to cancel the meeting on Thursday, October 8, 2009, and to re-schedule
that meeting for Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. Possible agenda items include
consideration of a recommendation to the Town Board regarding possible conservation zoning in
the Northeast area of the Town of Ithaca and follow-up discussion regarding the concept of nodal
development/development focus areas.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 26, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Sue Ritter,
Assistant Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jon Bosak, Planning Board;
Susan Riha, Planning Board, Herb Engman, Town Supervisor.
GUESTS PRESENT: Larry Fabbroni, Arno Selco, Kimberly Michaels, Trish Page, Tom
LiVigne, Cornell; Shirley Egan, Cornell; John Gutenberger, Cornell; Luann Prosperi Stefanucci,
Adrian Williams.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
1. Member Comments/Concerns: None.
2. Consideration and Possible Refinement of Northeast Conservation Zone
Recommendation to the Town Board:
Rich described format of meeting. Hear from stakeholders (property owners), then briefly from
residents, then Committee discussion.
Trish Page: Looked at plan. As a landscape architect, couldn’t come up with ideas for how
Lucente property could work. Has not thought much about Cornell site: lower value, less
sensitive, not concerned about it. Lucente land would be irretrievably lost and would affect
adjoining land. LeCain report demonstrates that land should not be developed. How many
wooded wetlands remain in south area? Only on Sapsucker Woods Sanctuary. Land must
retain its natural functions.
Tom L (Cornell): (See letters submitted) – Cornell has been holding property for workforce
housing. Opposed to rezoning to Conservation Zone.
Rich: How does Cornell envision using parcel. What about donating property to Cornell Lab of
Ornithology.
Tom L: East side could be set aside of open land. West side would be developed. Timing not
known, nothing of high ecological value on Cornell land. East side value is buffering.
Peter: Reference to LeCain report and three options.
Tom L: Reference to LeCain description’s of ecological community values.
Rich: Reference to Area 31, marginal wetland. What about considering to preserve wetland if
developed?
Tom L: 0.8 acre out of 29 acres, easily avoidable if parcel developed. Could be addressed in site
plan review.
Peter: Any idea how many units/people would live on site?
Tom L: Initial thought to develop for workforce housing.
Jon K: Estimate 60-70 dwelling unit max. based on 3 ½ dwelling unit/acre subtracting out
wetland and 8 acres buffer on east side.
Rich: Could cluster be used?
2
Tom L: Yes.
Rich: Town Board referred question to Planning Committee regarding what portions should be
Conservation Zone? Want to hear from Board members about ideas on where Conservation
Zone should be located. But first, hear from Larry Fabbroni.
Larry Fabbroni: “Have discussed” permanent solution. More amenable to permanent negotiated
Conservation Easement, so don’t have to revisit. Negotiate some development and Conservation
Easement. Would meet Malone/McBroom recommendations and valid recommendations of
LeCain. LeCain’s report is great inventory of what’s on land, but don’t agree with all of
conclusion/rec’s. Aerials back to 1938 show area was farm field. Lucente plan: Revise 46 to 30
lots up to 60 dwelling unit, more likely 1.25 dwelling unit/acre. Cluster Law does allow 3.5
dwelling units/acre, not proposing dense develop. Conservation Zone with one house/7 acres
unwarranted. Agrees with Tom LiVigne statement that there is a need for affordable housing,
not just students. Mr. Lucente has been following Comprehensive Plan, R-15/Medium Density
Residential zoning. Park and Open Space plan calls for Open Space as part of proposal. Town
declared moratorium and did study. Some science and conclusions are not valid. Want to
develop low to medium density housing. Would like to meet happy medium. Open Space would
be donated to Cornell’s Lab of Ornithology, Finger Lakes Land Trust (FLLT), or whoever would
accept it. Want to work with Town on a reasonable conclusion.
Rich: Any chance of further negotiations on land swaps?
Larry F: Couldn’t find acceptable trade. Example of Hanshaw/Etna Road. Tom LiVigne agreed
that these were not good fits.
Rich: Focus on contested area, northeast corner. Section 8 by water tower.
Larry F: LeCain aggregated Section 8 too much. Part is wood land. Development proposal
includes less valuable land, less under growth.
Rich: What about Section 10?
Larry: Includes pine growth, also continuity to development area.
Rich: Now direct discussion to Committee and Board members.
Pat: What is value of biological corridor for this area?
Rich: Connect areas to southeast with Cornell’s Lab of Ornithology.
Peter: Value is as a whole, animals migrate from one place to another. Connect to Monkey Run.
Currently connected by Lucente parcel.
Pat: What about the alternative of a Conservation Easement instead of rezoning. What
configuration are people talking about? Could plan be changed more?
Larry F: Could reduce lots near wetland and increase width of corridor. If fence on south
removed, add corridor on south by reducing lots. Could be on table for discussion.
Rich: Why not on table now?
Larry: Need confidence that Town willing accept a reasonable plan.
Rich: We have always asked, “what is bottom line”?
Larry F: Only heard from seven board members for first time at Board meeting last week.
Neighbors have said they want nothing.
Rich: Recommendation has been in Committee until last week. Need to make decision based on
current proposal.
Bill: Looking at maps and trying not to look at development proposed, but at value of land.
Finding it hard to zone Conservation Zone to lower value lands.
Question: What about wetland buffers?
Jon K: Explained ACOE regulations to Committee.
3
Rich: What is Town’s authority to regulate wetlands and buffers.
Susan B: Town currently has no wetland regulations. Could regulate through SEQR. Town
could establish wetland regulations at least as restrictive as DEC regulations. Town could
regulate buffers around designated wetlands. Could base on wetland function, one size buffer
doesn’t fit all wetlands.
Bill: Initial thought: Place higher value area on Lucente in Conservation Zone, exclude lower
value areas. Exclude most of Cornell parcel from Conservation Zone. Not sure about low –
medium – value areas on Cornell (wetlands) and Lucente (parts).
Peter: Town has little negotiating tool. Have little authority to negotiate as a Board. Heard from
homeowners, did a study, had moratorium, always assumed “negotiation” would come from
developer, not Town.
Pat: What about wetland buffer?
Jon K: Explained to Committee that a buffer overlay was prepared development by staff to show
where overlap between development areas (and buffers). Plan could be revised to adjust lot
layout to avoid wetland buffers.
Pat: Still concerned with drainage, but not clear whether Conservation Zone would help reduce
drainage impacts. Could rezone Conservation Zone on a smaller area and leave enough area for
development?
Larry F: Agrees Conservation Zone zone on entire parcel would not leave viable development
opportunity. Things like tree preservation, open space preservation can be factored into
development. Can work with easement area to restrict development accordingly.
Rich: Planning Board can take care of much of this in development review. Purpose of
Conservation Zone is to preserve outstanding natural features in certain areas of the Town.
Tee-Ann: Heard only very little from Cornell. No clear sense from Cornell about intentions for
parcel. Doesn’t know what impacts of development on Cornell parcel would be. How protect
area from degradation.
Bill: Suggested a segment of Cornell parcel for Conservation Zone. Willing to give Town
easement on east portion?
Tom L: Don’t know how Cornell parcel will develop. Holding parcel to fit in with housing
initiative and County housing needs assessment. Several parcels surround campu s, need for
affordable workforce housing.
Peter: Reiterated what Tom had said – development to MDR density.
Bill: Normally, Planning Board would deal with development details. Tom has used PDZ’s in
past.
Peter/Sue: PDZ not usually used for just residential development.
Herb: Reiterated his belief that Conservation Easement would be most effective way to deal
with preserving land permanently. Could carve at what needs to be protected.
Rich: Would carving up land preserve values of land? Conservation Easement only happens
with a development proposal. We are dealing with a specific proposal.
Herb: Town Board could identify a group to work with developer to work out a plan.
Rich: Could Conservation Easement be done in conjunction with a Conservation Zone?
Pat: Probably, if Conservation Zone small enough. What about buffer?
Larry F: South end of wetland is marginal. Insists that buffer not important on south end.
Susan B: Could lots still be developed with deed restrictions?
Larry F: Yes, as long as still development on these lots.
Jon K: What about stormwater facilities?
4
Rich: Who would enforce deed restrictions on buffer on lots?
Susan B: Could be in Conservation Easement. Easement holder would be responsible.
Adrian: Referred to Larry’s description of “Low value wetland”: LeCain Study classifies south
wetland as higher value.
Rich: Heard from Cornell, Larry. Heard form Board members. Will we come out today with
anything different.
Bill: Had made a proposal.
Peter: Need to think about what was said.
Rich: Under time constraint. Both Cornell and Lucente said they’re okay with extended
moratorium. Rich prefers not putting off decision because we’ll be back at same place in six
months.
Bill: Go with Conservation Zone on most of Lucente parcel except south end. Conservation
Zone allows some units. Would work with Planning Board to cluster, could end up with one cul-
de-sac at water tank or above Town Park? Would this do same as negotiation with developer?
Bill is not supportive of extending moratorium. Would like intense discussion sooner than later.
Rich: If do Conservation Zone proposal, what time frame?
Susan B: Would set Public Hearing (say at November 9th meeting). Need documents at least ten
days in advance. Thirty day notification requirement to County, need to finalize form of
documents.
Rich: Less than two weeks if do by December 7th.
Arno Selco: Similar to student asking professor for proposal. Developer should make the
proposal. Stormwater facilities could be a failure. Community has made its wishes known on
many occasions. If Conservation Zone, developer would know how many units. Planning Board
would know guidelines for development.
Rich: Propose three minute break – Discuss second agenda item.
3. Discussion of Financial and Scheduling Parameters Related to a Potential West Hill
Supplemental Traffic Study:
Rich: Discussion came up with review of Route 96 Study regarding traffic impacts of
development on West Hill. Should we do it, why, how much and cost?
Peter: Talked with Jon K. and Sue about this to try to figure out what we need to do.
Jon K: Handed out a draft proposal.
Rich: Would build out analysis be compared with alternate scenarios?
Jon K: Explained outline to Committee.
Rich: Any questions? How about financial component?
Rich: Questions: How about data collection.
Luanne Prosperi Stefanucci: Concerned with how emergency services serve West Hill.
Concerned with West Hill fire protection. Not reflected in traffic studies. Route 96 Corridor
Study is flawed.
Rich/Peter: If traffic study is like other studies, would be pro-development, not reflect residents
concerns.
Tee-Ann: There are many existing problems on West Hill; disappointed that Town has not
gotten study underway.
Herb: Concerned that Comprehensive Plan process needs to go on its own. Study being
discussed would be Study of only one neighborhood:
5
Herb: Factor in: 1) road between Mecklenburg Road and Bundy Road
2) traffic to hospital road and traffic light
Bill: West Hill residents also concerned with emergency service on West Hill.
Jon K: Described costs of study.
Peter: Good start. Need to flesh out and bring to Town Board for discussion.
Tee-Ann: West Hill is under served. Need to recoup costs of mitigation from developers.
Herb: West Hill less populated than other areas of the Town.
Rich: What is budget time line?
Peter moved to send study outline to the Town Board for consideration and approval (adopt basic
procedure and parameters).
Rich seconded.
Jon Bosak: If Study is done, need to be realistic about development. Hospital has refused to
allow access for Holochuck through their property.
Bill: Doesn’t support money for study without knowing more about what consultant would do.
Pat: Could start study without budget.
Rich: Could make budget motion at Town Board.
Vote: Committee unanimously agreed to recommend to Town Board to consider adding money
to $15,000 already in Planning Study for a West Hill Study.
4. Other Business: None.
5. Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next Committee meeting was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, November 12, 2009 at
4:30 p.m.
Possible agenda item: Consideration of Possible Amendments to the Requirements of
Conservation Zones in the Town of Ithaca Code (Chapter 270, Article V).
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 12, 2009 MEETING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo, Peter Stein, Bill Goodman.
OTHER TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Herb Engman, Supervisor; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Hollis Erb, Planning Board
Member.
GUESTS PRESENT: Krisy Gashler, Larry Fabbroni, Arno Selco, Bill Sonnenstuhl, Stephen
Wagner.
Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m.
Member/Public Comments/Concerns/Announcements:
In reference to the proposed amendments to the Conservation Zone, Stephen asked the
Committee to consider wetland buffers as a minimum of 100 feet and to allow flexibility based
on the character and ecological value of each wetland to extend the buffer to more than 100 feet
if necessary. Larry suggested that the Town be cautious about changing the requirements of
Conservation Zones while considering rezoning of the Briarwood property to a Conservation
Zone. Rich responded that the Town has been considering amendments to the Conservation
Zone for over a year based upon the Conservation Board’s request.
Review of Possible Amendments to the Conservation Zone Provisions:
Rich asked Jonathan to outline the proposed revisions to requirements in the Conservation Zone.
Jonathan indicated that the Conservation Board had sent a memo to the Town Board, dated
October 3, 2008, requesting that some of the regulations in the Conservation Zone should be
strengthened to protect sensitive natural areas. Jonathan referred to the outline that he had
provided to the Committee (“Conservation Zones – Problems to Address in Regulations”,
revised October 2, 2009, a copy of which is attached to this meeting summary). Jonathan
explained that there are three parts of the proposed revisions drafted to address the issues that
have been identified, including provisions in the Conservation Zone (Article V in Chapter 270 of
the Town of Ithaca Code), extraction or deposit of fill and related products (Section 270-217 in
Chapter 270), and definitions (Section 270-5 in Chapter 270). Jonathan indicated that the
primary issues to address included clarifying the functions and definitions of biological
corridors, wooded areas, and wetlands; preventing unnecessary cutting or clearing of trees; and
addressing earth moving in Conservation Zones.
The Committee went through the proposed amendments and discussed the following additional
items that would be desirable to forward to the Codes and Ordinances Committee for
consideration along with the draft of the proposed amendments:
2
1) Fences/walls: Although the Town Board just passed the amendments to the fence and
wall provisions that COC recently completed, there is concern that fences or walls in a
conservation zone could negatively impact biological corridors if located in proximity to
a property in a Conservation Zone. As one approach, the Planning Committee discussed
the possibility of making fences and walls special permit uses in Conservation Zones,
subject to Planning Board approval, and making the accompanying references in the
newly adopted fence and wall provisions. This could be done by adding a new sub-
section “J” on page 3 of Article V, Section 270-12 Principal uses authorized by special
permit as follows: “J. Fences and walls. In reviewing an application for a fence or wall,
the Planning Board shall take into consideration the possible impacts of such fence or
wall on the movement of wildlife in any biological corridor in proximity of the site in
question.”
2) Wetland Buffer: There was a question of whether a 100 foot buffer around wetlands
would be sufficient or whether this should be considered a minimum with a provision
allowing the Planning Board to extend the wetland buffer on a case-by-case basis
depending on the ecological quality and value of the wetland. This would apply to the
proposed amendment in Section 270-217 Extraction or deposit of fill and related
products, Section A, where the proposed amendment (in red-line) says that “In any zone,
no such disturbance shall occur in or within 100 feet of any wetland as defined in this
Chapter without the approval of the Planning Board.” There could be an additional
provision added to that saying something like: “or such larger area if determined
necessary by the Planning Board.” This could also apply to the existing provision in
Article V Conservation Zones, Section 270-22 Additional requirements and restrictions,
sub-section B.2, which says that “Unless otherwise authorized by the Planning Board, no
disturbance as listed above shall be located within 100 feet linear distance of any
wetland.” This could also apply to the proposed addition in Article V on page 3, sub-
section H Harvesting and cutting of timber, which says that “no such clearing shall occur
in or within 100 feet of any wetland as defined in this Chapter.”
3) Definition of “Biological Corridor”: In the proposed amendments in Section 270-5
Definitions, it was suggested that the definition of “Biological Corridor (page 3) be
modified by adding a reference to “aquatic habitats” that could be part of a biological
corridor. The Committee liked that modification, but also thought that it might be better
to use a more general definition of biological corridor so that specific types of habitats do
not have to be included in the definition. There are discussions and recommendations
regarding biological corridors in the report “Building Greenways for Tompkins County:
An Action Plan”, July 1995, prepared by the Tompkins County Greenway Coalition, but
not really any single definition of “biological corridor” that could be excerpted into our
definitions. That report does include helpful information regarding the functions of
biological corridors to meet the needs of wildlife for habitat, dispersal, breeding, and
migration, and these corridors serve to connect core habitat areas. Perhaps a new or
modified definition of “biological corridor” could be formulated by COC. It was also
indicated that part of the Comprehensive Plan update process will include the
identification and mapping of specific biological corridors in the Town.
3
4) Protection of trees of certain size or age: The Planning Committee also discussed the
possibility of adding a more specific provision regarding the preservation of trees of a
certain size diameter, but realized that this could get complicated. Perhaps COC could
take a look at this and see if there is some language that could be added to strengthen this
aspect. Note that we did add Section E (page 4) of Article V, which says that “Any
modification of wooded areas requiring a special permit under this Article shall
demonstrate a clear plan to preserve healthy, mature trees, and to especially identify
ecologically valuable trees of native species to be conserved throughout the cutting or
clearing operation.” This may be considered to be sufficient for purposes of these
amendments. This is also an issue that COC could look at in conjunction with the longer-
term preparation of town-wide Tree Preservation regulations.
Peter made a motion to forward the proposed revisions to the Conservation Zone (Article V),
extraction or deposit of fill and related products (Section 270-217), and definitions (Section 270-
5) to the Codes and Ordinances Committee, as drafted, for consideration, with a request that
Codes and Ordinances also consider the four additional items as outlined above for possible
incorporation into the proposed amendments. Bill seconded the motion. The Committee
approved the motion unanimously.
Other Business:
Rich asked about the status of the West Hill traffic study. Jonathan suggested discussing this
with the Comprehensive Plan Committee to get their thoughts on this. Rich asked about the
Scenic Resources report. Sue indicated that a draft report has been prepared by a summer intern,
and staff is in the process of reviewing and revising the draft. If ready in December, it could be
brought to the Committee, otherwise, it would come at a later meeting.
Schedule and Agenda for Next Meeting:
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, December 10, 2009. A possible agenda item
would be an update on the status of staff mapping and narrative regarding significant natural
areas in the Town in relation to the gas drilling issue.
Adjournment: As there was no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning