The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Packet 2026-08-18 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, August 18, 2026 6:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Persons to be heard. 2. SEQR Determination: The Woods at SouthWorks – NYS Route 96B/Danby Road. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the SouthWorks Woods project located off NYS Route 96B/Danby Road, in Town of Ithaca Planned Development Zone No.16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed site-specific SouthWorks Woods mixed-income residential project, which comprises a 6.09-acre portion of the overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, and involves the construction of eight residential buildings with a total of 130 mixed-income apartments, including a community room, lounge, fitness center, offices, maintenance areas, and storage. The Woods project also involves the development of internal roads and infrastructure, a playground, sidewalks and path connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping, outdoor lighting, parking, and other site improvements. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will first determine if the project exceeds the threshold conditions that were outlined in the GEIS Findings Statement, therefore requiring additional or supplemental environmental review. The board will then consider Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the project. Shift Chainworks Owner 1 LLC, Owner; Beacon Communities, LLC, Applicant; James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, PC, Agent. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. C.J. Randall Director of Planning 607-273-1747 Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom videoconference at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382 or by calling (929) 436-2866 and entering Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments directly to the Board during Persons to be Heard and/or Public Hearing. To watch the meeting live, please visit www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live. Recorded meetings are viewable at YouTube.com/TownofIthacaVideo. Written comments can be addressed to the Planning Board (in-person at Town Hall; by mail; or via email at Planning@townithacany.gov) until noon the day of the meeting. Comments addressed to the Board will be distributed to all Board members and Applicant(s). Comments received after the posting of the agenda packet (five business days prior to the meeting) are distributed to the Board on the day of the meeting. Comments are public and become part of the project file. Applications and associated project materials are available on the Town’s website at https://townithacany.gov/meeting-calendar-agendas/ under the calendar meeting date. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, starting at 6:30 P.M. on the following matter: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the SouthWorks Woods project located off NYS Route 96B/Danby Road, in Town of Ithaca Planned Development Zone No.16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed site-specific SouthWorks Woods mixed-income residential project, which comprises a 6.09-acre portion of the overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, and involves the construction of eight residential buildings with a total of 130 mixed-income apartments, including a community room, lounge, fitness center, offices, maintenance areas, and storage. The Woods project also involves the development of internal roads and infrastructure, a playground, sidewalks and path connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping, outdoor lighting, parking, and other site improvements. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will first determine if the project exceeds the threshold conditions that were outlined in the GEIS Findings Statement, therefore requiring additional or supplemental environmental review. The board will then consider Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the project. Shift Chainworks Owner 1 LLC, Owner; Beacon Communities, LLC, Applicant; James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, PC, Agent. Members of the public are welcome to attend meetings in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom videoconference at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382 or by calling (929) 436-2866 and entering Meeting ID: 836 4376 4382. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments directly to the Board during Persons to be Heard and/or Public Hearing. To watch the meeting live, please visit www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live. Recorded meetings are viewable at YouTube.com/TownofIthacaVideo. Written comments can be addressed to the Planning Board (in-person at Town Hall; by mail; or via email at Planning@townithacany.gov) via email until noon the day of the meeting. Comments addressed to the Board will be distributed to all Board members and Applicant(s). Comments received after the posting of the agenda packet (five business days prior to the meeting) are distributed to the Board on the day of the meeting. Comments are public and become part of the project file. C.J. Randall, Director of Planning 1 To: Planning Board Members From: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Date: August 10, 2026 RE: Proposed SouthWorks Woods Project – Tentative SEQR Determination & Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision Approval Enclosed please find the following additional materials for the SouthWorks Woods project: 1. Draft SEQR resolution (tentatively included) 2. Copy of GEIS Checklist (no change to checklist from 8-4), with revised, redlined EAF Part 3 attachment 3. Draft Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision resolution (tentatively included 4. Copy of memo from Marty Moseley to South Works applicants, dated 7/21/2026 (stapled to Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision resolution) 5. Letter from consulting engineers Barton & Loguidice, on behalf of Town Engineering Department – SWPPP (stapled to Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision resolution) 6. Letter from Fagan Engineers to Marty Moseley, regarding stream setback mitigation 7. Letter from SWBR Architects to Planning Board, regarding building exterior finishes 8. Letter from Beacon Communities to Planning Board, regarding Center for Community Transportation (bike/carshare) and TCAT 9. Letter from LaBella to Fagan Engineering, regarding traffic signal warrant/left-turn lane assessment 10. Revised site plans that show individual sidewalk extensions to Danby Road/NYS Route 96B from Mansion Apartments, and more bicycle racks along the site, closer to the buildings The Planning Board will continue to discuss the GEIS materials and is anticipated to make a SEQR determination at the meeting on August 18, 2026. Time permitting, the Board could also open the Public Hearing and consider Preliminary Site Plan/Subdivision approval for the Woods project. Here is a link to the GEIS Findings Statement with PB instructions on how to navigate the contents: SouthWorks project background materials. Here is a link to the Chain Works District GEIS: https://www.chainworksdistrict.com/approval- process-geis Please feel free to email me at cbalestra@townithacany.gov or call me at (607) 273-1721, ext. 121, if you have any questions. Att. CC: Daniel Bellgraph, Beacon Communities Development LLC James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors PC Rob Lewis, Shift Chainworks Owner I LLC PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR Determination The Woods at SouthWorks Residential Development NYS Route 96B/Danby Road Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-3 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 18, 2026 WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the SouthWorks Woods project located off NYS Route 96B/Danby Road, in Town of Ithaca Planned Development Zone No.16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed site-specific SouthWorks Woods mixed-income residential project, which comprises a portion of the overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, and involves the construction of eight residential buildings with a total of 130 mixed-income apartments, including a community room, lounge, fitness center, offices, maintenance areas, and storage. The Woods project also involves the development of internal roads and infrastructure, a playground, sidewalks and path connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping, outdoor lighting, parking, and other site improvements. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will first determine if the project exceeds the threshold conditions that were outlined in the GEIS Findings Statement, therefore requiring additional or supplemental environmental review. The board will then consider Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the project. Shift Chainworks Owner 1 LLC, Owner; Beacon Communities, LLC, Applicant; James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, PC, Agent; 2. The overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project is located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. It is a proposed mixed-use development consisting of residential, office, commercial, retail, restaurant/café, warehousing/distribution, manufacturing, and open space. The City of Ithaca, as the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS on March 26, 2019; 3. The Town of Ithaca, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review of the SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS on May 21, 2019. The Findings Statement included a threshold condition chart and checklist for future site-specific projects associated with the overall development; 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at their meetings on August 4, 2026, and August 18, 2026, have reviewed and accepted as adequate a project narrative with twenty (21) attachments, including: a visual impact analysis; a letter from LaBella, dated June 24, 2026, regarding soil vapor intrusion mitigation; correspondence between the applicant and Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement, regarding fire apparatus configuration and Code requirements; a letter from Fagan Engineers, dated July 20, 2026, regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans; two letters from LaBella, one dated June 29, 2026, regarding traffic assessment, and one dated August 3, 2026, regarding traffic signal warrant and left-turn lane assessment; a letter from Fagan Engineering, dated July 7, 2026 (update August 10, 2026), regarding stream setback mitigation; a letter from SWBR, dated August 10, 2026, regarding cladding materials in compliance with Town Code §271-17 (F)(6)(d); a letter from Beacon Communities, dated August 10, 2026, regarding Center for Community Transportation/TCAT Engagement; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prepared by Fagan Engineers, revised July 2026; a Page 2 of 2 Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Foundation Design, P.C., dated March 10, 2026; an Excavation Plan, prepared by Pike; a letter from Timothy Faulkner, Fisher Associates, dated July 28, 2026, regarding SouthWorks Beacon Woods transportation assessment; Site Plan Drawings titled “Beacon Communities, The Woods at SouthWorks, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by SWBR, dated August 14, 2024, most recently revised August 10, 2026, including sheets C100, C200, C300, C301 through C306, C400 through C407, C500 through C505, C600, C601, C700 through C702, C800 through C802, C900, and C901; Site Plan and Architectural Renderings, prepared by SWBR (no date); Exterior Elevations and Detail sheets, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, including sheets A201-A, A201-B1, A202-B2, A203-B3, A201-C1, A202-C2, and A203-C3; Layout and Materials plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, revised June 29, 2026, including sheets L-101 through L-104; Planting Plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, including sheets L-401 through L-405; Lighting Plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, revised June 29, 2026, including sheets L-301 through L-307; Construction Phasing Plan, titled “The Woods Draft Phasing and Logistics Plan,” dated 6-29-26; and other materials (collectively, “Application Materials”); 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the Lead Agency for The Woods at SouthWorks project, has reviewed the GEIS threshold conditions, and accepted as adequate a completed GEIS threshold checklist and Part 3 EAF, prepared by Town staff, dated July 28, 2026; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds the following: 1. The Application Materials submitted for The Woods project have demonstrated that deviating from the strict sequence envisioned in the GEIS for Phase 1 allows a more thoughtful and flexible development phasing to meet market demands and allows construction of mixed- income housing sooner; 2. The Applicants agree to reinitiate review of the project with the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”), and to complete any supplemental traffic studies determined by NYSDOT and Town of Ithaca Department of Public Works to be necessary to assess traffic impacts along NYS Route 96B/Danby Road and affected local and County roads; and 3. The Woods at SouthWorks project does not exceed the threshold conditions outlined in the SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project GEIS Findings Statement, based on the GEIS threshold conditions outlined in the Findings Statement, the GEIS checklist attachment, and the reasons stated above. Therefore, The Woods at SouthWorks project does not require additional environmental review. 1 # Environmental Criteria Response If you respond “Yes” to any question (a) - (c), characterize the extent of the impact None, or small impact may occur Moderate to large impact may occur 1 1) Land Use and Zoning If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 2. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Land Use and Zoning? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 2 2) Land The proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, the land surface of the proposed site If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 3. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Land? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ South Works Woods-Beacon 130-unit development-Checklist Chain Works District Findings Statement Attachment B Checklist for Future Project Plans Consistency with GEIS Tips for Completing this Checklist: •Review all relevant information from the Findings Statement; refer back to the GEIS if necessary. •Answer each part of the 14 questions on this Checklist •If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all questions that follow in that section. •If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question. •If you answer “Yes” to any question (a) - (c), characterize the extent of the impact by checking either “None, or small impact may occur,” or “Moderate to large impact may occur.” •If you are unsure or undecided about a response, review the Findings Statement or refer back to the GEIS. •When answering a question, consider all components of the proposed action. •Consider the possibility of long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. •Complete Part 3 of the Full EAF for any impact which may have a moderate to large impact or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of Future Project Plans does or does not require additional environmental review. The proposed action is not completely consistent with future land use plans in the GEIS. Please see Part 3 attachment for further evaluation. 2 3 3) Water Resources The proposed action may impact groundwater, surface water, or stormwater. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 4. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Water Resources? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 4 4) Vegetation and Fauna The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 5. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Vegetation and Fauna? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 5 5) Public Health and Environment The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 6. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Public Health and Environment? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 6 6) Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archeological resource. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 7. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Historic and Archeological Resources? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 3 7 7) Traffic and Circulation The proposed action may result in a change to the existing transportation systems. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 8. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Traffic and Circulation? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 8 8) Utilities The proposed action may result in a change to the existing utilities. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 9. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Utilities? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 9 9) Air Quality The proposed action may include a state-regulated air emission source. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 10. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Air Quality? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 10 10) Visual and Aesthetic Resources The proposed action creates a sharp contrast to a scenic or aesthetic resource. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 11. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Visual and Aesthetic Resources? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 4 11 11) Community Services The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, fire, solid waste management, etc.) If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 12. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Community Services? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 12 12) Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to section 13. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Open Space and Recreation? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 13 13) Construction Activities The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. If “Yes,” answer a-c. If “No,” go to Part II. B. ☐ NO ☐ YES a) Does the proposed action have any potential impacts that have not been analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ b) Is the proposed action inconsistent with mitigation measures that were identified in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ c) Does the proposed action exceed any CWD Project thresholds related to Construction Activities? ☐ NO ☐ YES ☐ ☐ 14 14) Other Environmental Factors Are there any other potential environmental impacts (not discussed above) associated with the Future Project Plans which were not analyzed in the GEIS? ☐ NO ☐ YES If “Yes,” characterize the extent of the impact None, or small impact may occur ☐ Moderate to large impact may occur ☐ Doc #01-3224132.5 1 New York State Environmental Quality Review Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 – Evaluaon of The Woods at SouthWorks- Beacon Communities LLC 130-unit development Revised, redlined for 8-18-2026 PB meeng Proposed Acon: Site Plan Approval Location: Danby Road/NYS Route 96B, Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-3 Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Reviewer: Chrisne Balestra, Senior Planner Review Date: July 28, 2026 (revised August 11, 2026) Description: The project is the proposed SouthWorks' Woods mixed-income residential project, located on the SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) project site off Danby Road/NYS Route 96B, in Town of Ithaca Planned Development Zone No. 16 (Town Code § 271-17). The SouthWorks Woods project will involve the construction of eight residential buildings with a total of 130 mixed- income apartments, including a community room, lounge, fitness center, offices, maintenance areas, and storage on a 6.09-ac portion of the SouthWorks project site. The Woods project will also include the development of internal roads and infrastructure, a playground, sidewalks and path connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping, outdoor lighting, parking, and other site improvements. The Woods project comprises a portion of the overall SouthWorks redevelopment project (formerly Chain Works District), which is a multi-phased, mixed-use master planned development that involves repurposing existing manufacturing buildings, as well as constructing new buildings, parking areas, open space areas, roads, multi-modal transportation connections, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements to accommodate new residential, office, commercial, and manufacturing development within the Town and City of Ithaca. The entirety of the SouthWorks redevelopment project underwent a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) process between 2014 and 2019, with the City of Ithaca as the Lead Agency in the environmental review. A GEIS was prepared to address impacts of multiple actions within this specific, defined geographic area. On May 21, 2019, the Town of Ithaca, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS that included threshold conditions for future site-specific projects associated with the overall development. A GEIS threshold condition chart is found on pages 50-51 of the Findings Statement. The Findings Statement also contains a checklist for the relevant future Lead Agency to complete when considering future site-specific projects (City of Ithaca will be Lead Agency for projects within the City of Ithaca; Town of Ithaca will be Lead Agency for projects within the Town of Ithaca). The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the Lead Agency for “The Woods at SouthWorks” project review. The GEIS checklist recommends that the Lead Agency complete Part 3 of the Full EAF for any impact which may have a moderate to large impact or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of Future Project Plans does or does not require additional environmental review. The sections below comply with this recommendation. 2 Environmental Criteria (numbered headings and leers below are verbam from GEIS Checklist): 1. Land Use and Zoning- The proposed acon is not completely consistent with future land use plans in the GEIS. The overall development of the property is governed by a Planned Development Zone (PDZ No. 16), which was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in the GEIS and subsequent Findings Statement. The PDZ implements LEED for Neighborhood Development (hereaer referenced as “LEED ND”) guidelines for sustainable, urban style development. According to the PDZ, the design for the development follows tradional neighborhood development (TND) principles and features a disnct mix of uses and densies that exceed or diﬀer from what Town Code Chapter 270 (Zoning) allows in the Town’s Industrial Zone or other exisng zoning districts. Among the PDZ objecves, new construcon is intended to provide much needed housing and an interconnected grid of streets and pathways to link the overall project to the Gateway Trail and to the greater South Hill neighborhood in the city and the town. The Woods project is located within PDZ Subareas “CW2A” and “CW2B,” which were purposely designated for primarily residenal uses, and contain speciﬁc design guidelines for buildings, streets, parks, and other site speciﬁc items. The PDZ lists the total number of residenal units permied in Subareas CW2A and CW2B (less than or equal to 450 units), along with requirements for building types, building designs, park/civic/open spaces, thoroughfare designs, landscaping and buﬀers, setback dimensions, fence/wall designs, outdoor lighng designs, and other requirements. The Woods project complies with many of the PDZ requirements and with the prerequisites for a LEED ND project, including walkable streets, compact development, and connected and open community. The applicant will seek variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for any aspect of the project that is not in compliance with the PDZ provisions, speciﬁcally:  Thoroughfare designs (road lengths, widths, lanes) - the applicant has been working with the town to provide designs that comply with current New York State Fire Code requirements, was well as PDZ requirements, as deﬁned by Town Code § 271-17E(3).  PDZ-required bBuilding façade lengths, setback requirements - buildings B1, B2, and B3, and C1, C2, and C3 may have slightly longer façade lengths than permied in the building disposion chart in §271-17F(2)(g) and (h). Although the visual impact of the overall SouthWorks development has been analyzed in the GEIS (see secon 10 below), the applicant may need to seek variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals to develop these buildings with the proposed façade lengths. The applicant has provided a zoning analysis to clarify how the project meets other setback requirements for each of the building types. The Director of Code Enforcement will conﬁrm the informaon as part of the site plan review process for the project.  Building materials – the proposed buildings may exceed the maximum permied percentage of secondary cladding material, per the chart and descripon in §271-17F(6)(d). In parcular, the buildings might exceed the maximum corrugated metal cladding permied. This is ancipated to be veriﬁed and corrected during the site plan review process. Based on a review of The Woods applicaon materials, the project is consistent with future land use plans in the GEIS. Per the threshold chart on page 50 of the Findings Statement, there are no changes 3 in the allowable uses in the Subareas, no changes to the size, locaon, or maximum density of the Subareas, no material change to the Conceptual Site Layout Plan (e.g., general locaon or grouping of structures and streets or site access points), and no changes in the overall square footage of uses. The Woods project therefore complies with the Land Use/Zoning thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. 2. Land- The proposed acon may involve construcon on, or physical alteraon of, the land surface of the proposed site. The GEIS Findings Statement explained the potenal impacts on land associated with development of the enre 95-acre SouthWorks project. The Woods development will comprise around 7+/- acres of the overall development. The Findings Statement contains an esmate of 68,000 cubic yards of cut and ﬁll that will be necessary to balance the enre development site. The intent is to minimize the import and export of materials to and from the site. According to the applicaon materials, the Woods project development will involve 10,304 cubic yards of excavated material and 28,297 cubic yards of ﬁll. The Gateway development proposed in the City of Ithaca will involve 4,300 cubic yards of excavated material and 2,400 cubic yards of ﬁll. The combined cut-ﬁll ancipated between the two developments will much less than the GEIS Findings Statement threshold. The Woods project will be located on slopes less than 20%. The applicant has submied a geotechnical report and soil study for the project that suggests imporng structural ﬁll (noted above) and blasng to remove bedrock. Speciﬁcally, the report states “Current grading shows cuts up to approximately 10 feet into the bedrock. Deep ulity/foundaon work extending below the bedrock refusal depths will require the use of blasng, a hoe-ram, rock teeth, or some other form of mechanical fracturing to remove the bedrock.” The GEIS Findings Statement analyzed the potenal impacts to soils, and notes on page 15 that “if necessary, a system of controlled blasng would be speciﬁed that includes methodology, migaon, and monitoring requirements.” The submied report contains methodology, migaon, and monitoring for the proposed blasng. Any proposed blasng should comply with the NYSDOT Geotechnical Engineering Manual: Procedure for Blasng. There is a stream on the property that is regulated by Town Code §270-219.5 (stream setback), which prohibits development within a 35-foot setback on either side of the stream, as measured from the centerline. The Woods project will involve signiﬁcant impacts to the stream, as shown on the submied plans for the project (speciﬁcally, sheet C306). Impacts to the stream were ancipated in the GEIS Findings Statement (pages 15 and 17). The applicant is required to migate impacts to the stream, and the Planning Board, through the site plan review process, will make a recommendaon to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the proposed migaons. Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 50 of the Findings Statement, there will be no development proposed on slopes greater than or equal to 20%. The Woods project therefore complies with the Land-Topography thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. Migaon measures will be required for impacts to the stream on the property that is regulated by Town Code §270-219.5 (stream setback). 3. Water Resources- The proposed acon may impact groundwater, surface water, or stormwater. 4 The GEIS analyzed the potenal impacts associated with stormwater management, groundwater, and hydrogeological condions for the enre future SouthWorks buildout. The GEIS contained a conceptual stormwater phasing plan to meet New York State Polluon Discharge Eliminaon System (SPDES) perming requirements. Migaons for impacts to stormwater quanty and quality for the enre SouthWorks project includes developing diversion swales, implemenng runoﬀ reducon pracces in accordance with New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual provisions, green infrastructure pracces, creang onsite storage and reuse of stormwater ﬂows as reducon pracces, implemenng hydrodynamic systems, e.g., gravity or vortex separators, and other pracces. Per the Findings Statement requirements, the applicant for The Woods project has submied a site- speciﬁc Stormwater Polluon Prevenon Plan (SWPPP) for The Woods development that ancipates an increase in 3.87+/- in impervious surface for the project. The GEIS analyzed an increase of 11.2 acres for the enre SouthWorks project. The City of Ithaca Gateway project will have a net gain of 0.46+/- acre of permeable surfaces (mainly grass/lawn). Therefore, the total impervious surface created by The Woods and Gateway projects will be much less than the GEIS threshold. The submied SWPPP contains several proposed pracces for water quality and water quanty treatment, including migang impacts to the stream noted in #2 above. The Town of Ithaca Engineering Department has conducted a preliminary review of the SWPPP and has determined that it is adequate for preliminary site plan review purposes. The Engineering Department will connue to work with the applicant to ensure that the pracces proposed for the SWPPP are in accordance with all NYS requirements. Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 50 of the Findings Statement, The Woods project will not exceed a total impervious surface site coverage rate of 70%. The project complies with the Water Resources threshold listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. Migaons to impacts related to stormwater management and stream impacts will be implemented according to the SWPPP prepared for the project. 4. Vegetaon and Fauna- The proposed acon may result in a loss of ﬂora and fauna. The GEIS Findings Statement noted that the CW2 Subarea consists of successional shrubs and young trees, containing invasive species that are typically found on previously disturbed sites. The GEIS ancipated that porons of the vegetaon would be fully removed to accommodate future development in the CW2 Subarea; and that porons would be selecvely removed and replanted with nave species. There is a small area of an Appalachian Oak-Hickory forest that is located in Subarea CW2 that will be removed by grading and development of The Woods project. According to the applicaon materials (speciﬁcally, Sheet C200, Exisng Condions), the poron of the forested area contains approximately 13 Sugar Maples between 8” and 14” DBH, one Box Elder at 8” DBH, and several dead White Ash trees. The remaining project site contains a variety of deciduous trees at a variety of DBH, some alive and some dead (mostly Black Walnut, Shagbark Hickory, Ash, with fewer Black Locust, Honey Locust, Buckthorn, Maple, a few Red Oaks, and invasive species e.g., Tree of Heaven). The remaining project area contains such a dense mat of invasive shrubs that the applicant was unable to enter the site (labeled as “dense vegetaon” on sheet C200). 5 As noted above, ancipated in the GEIS, the Woods project will involve removing this vegetaon to accommodate the development. The applicaon materials contain a robust planng plan (Sheets L- 401 through L-404) containing a variety of replacement trees, including oak, red maple, and honey locust, along with several shrubs, grasses, and meadow areas. All proposed planngs comply with the landscaping requirements of PDZ §§ 271-17E(3)(g)[8] and 271-17F(9). Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 50 of the Findings Statement, there are no facilies proposed in Subarea CW1. There will be no vegetaon loss in Subarea CW1 beyond what is noted in the GEIS. There is no material change to the size or locaon of Subarea CW1. The Woods project complies with the Vegetaon and Fauna thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. Impacts associated with the loss of the Appalachian Oak-Hickory forest noted in the GEIS will be migated to the greatest extent possible. 5. Public Health and Environment- The proposed acon may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or exisng sources of contaminants. The GEIS contained a signiﬁcant, thorough analysis of impacts and migaons of potenal contaminants on the overall SouthWorks property. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservaon issued three Records of Decision (ROD) for the property, the second and third of which called for remediaon of contaminaon to allow for residenal/mixed uses of the property: hps://extapps.dec.ny.gov/data/DecDocs/755010/ROD.HW.755010.2021-09-15.AROD_OU1%20and%20OU2.pdf and hps://extapps.dec.ny.gov/data/DecDocs/755010/ROD.HW.755010.2023-03 22.Explanaon%20of%20Signiﬁcant%20Diﬀerence_OU3.pdf According to New York State Department of Environmental Conservaon Division of Environmental Remediaon, as of 2023, the enre site has been remediated in accordance with the ROD Amendments. However, there are two sanitary sewer lines that cross the property in the Town of Ithaca poron of The Woods project that may require further evaluaon. The GEIS Findings Statement notes that “The Town of Ithaca Planning Board acknowledges that, in ancipaon that the project will move forward in a manner consistent with the conceptual site layout plan, NYSDEC has approved an Interim Remedial Measure (IRM) Work Plan. As part of implemenng the IRM, select locaons along the sanitary sewer lines will be invesgated to assess pipe integrity and potenal impacts in soil beneath or adjacent to the sewer lines.” The Findings Statement requires compliance with the ROD Declaraon of Covenants and Restricons, which requires evaluaon of areas designated for new construcon in the CW2 Subarea for the potenal for soil vapor intrusion when habitable structures are planned to be constructed in the vicinity of the former NCR and Ithaca College sewer lines. This will be required as a condion of site plan approval. Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 50 of the Findings Statement, there are no remedial acons that are diﬀerent than those required by the NYSDEC issued ROD Amendment to allow for the mixed-use of the Site and/or those analyzed in the GEIS. As the GEIS ancipated further soil vapor intrusion analysis and migaon along the NCR and Ithaca College sewer lines, the project complies with the Public Health and Environment thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. 6. Historic and Archaeological Resources- The proposed acon may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological resource. 6 The GEIS considered potenal impacts on cultural resources listed on or eligible for lisng on the State or Naonal Register of Historic Places around the SouthWorks project. According to the New York State Oﬃce of Parks and Historic Preservaon, the overall property is listed as the “Morse Chain Works Historic District”. A Phase IA archaeological survey was conducted, and, according to the Findings Statement, “did not result in informaon that would signiﬁcantly add to the understanding of the construcon, funcon, or use of the manufacturing facility, and no addional archaeological invesgaons were recommended.” The archaeological survey also did not uncover indigenous or other cultural arfacts of historic importance. The GEIS threshold chart did not contain a threshold for impacts to historic and archaeological resources because the majority of the structures eligible for lisng lie within the City of Ithaca poron of the property. There are no structures on part of the property where The Woods project will be located. 7. Traﬃc and Circulaon- The proposed acon may result in a change to the exisng transportaon systems. The GEIS contained a signiﬁcant analysis of potenal traﬃc impacts and migaons associated with the overall SouthWorks development. The traﬃc study locaons consisted of 30 exisng intersecons, observed during both AM and PM peak intervals (with schools in session) to assess traﬃc operaons at the me. The study included an analysis of all proposed driveways and intersecons, and contained very detailed migaon measures to be implemented at various phases of development, e.g. access drive improvements, intersecon signalizaon, signal coordinaon, turn lanes, geometric improvements, etc. The GEIS traﬃc study accounted for the renovaon of “all 26 buildings located on the property totaling approximately 821,200 square feet (“SF”).” It also evaluated the potenal traﬃc impacts associated with “adding approximately 86,600 SF to the exisng buildings, along with an esmated 890,700 SF new building construcon.” The total building space under full development has been ancipated to be approximately 1,706,150 SF. This total buildout includes all residenal, oﬃce, retail, restaurant, and light industrial land uses. The Gateway project in the City of Ithaca, and the Woods project in the Town of Ithaca, collecvely account for approximately 269,335 SF, which is around 16% of the square footage proposed for the overall project. The GEIS reviewed and analyzed traﬃc volumes on all roadways, considering exisng condions and mulple phases of the SouthWorks redevelopment. The GEIS made the following recommendaons (extracted from Page vi, “Conclusions and Recommendaons,” November 2016): 1. The proposed mixed-use neighborhood is expected to generate approximately 945 (925) new trips during the AM (PM) peak hours, respecvely 2. Volume warrants for le-turn treatments on NYS Route 96B at the proposed access roads were evaluated. During Phase 1 condions, three of the four driveways along NYS Route 96B are warranted for a le-turn lane during the AM peak hour. The warrants during the PM peak hour are not met. During full build-out condions, all of the proposed driveways along NYS Route 96B are warranted for a le-turn lane during the AM peak hour. The warrants during the PM peak hour are met for the proposed Driveway II, proposed Driveway III immediately south of Grandview Avenue, and the proposed Driveway V. 7 3. Capacity analysis condions under full development condions are not adversely impacted by the exisng roadway geometry along NYS Route 96B at the proposed driveways. However, the New York State Department of Transportaon may want to consider invesgang the applicaon of a road diet (i.e. conversion from four lanes to three lanes) treatment along NYS Route 96B starng at Grandview Avenue and proceeding southbound. The installaon of a road diet would create le-turn auxiliary lanes at major intersecons (e.g., Coddington Road, Ithaca College) and a space for vehicles to wait in before entering the through traﬃc stream upon exing minor side roads and driveways (i.e., a two- stage le-turn). 4. Le-turn lanes are recommended at the proposed Driveways III, IV, and V under full development condions. 5. Right-turn lane volume guidelines were also considered at the proposed intersecons NYS Route 96B. Based upon the previously noted capacity analysis results at the proposed driveways along NYS Route 96B and the roadway constraints between the proposed Driveway I and the proposed Driveway III immediately south of Grandview Avenue (steep grades, limited right-of-way), no right-turn lanes are recommended under Phase 1 or full development condions. 6. Based on the traﬃc signal warrant invesgaon, the traﬃc signal warrants dealing solely with traﬃc volumes (Warrants 1-3) are met under full development condions at the Coddington Road/Driveway IV /NYS Route 96B intersecon. Based upon the capacity analysis results, traﬃc signal warrant analysis, and the beneﬁt that a traﬃc signal would have at the intersecon, installaon of a traﬃc signal is recommended at the exisng/proposed driveway at the Coddington Road/Driveway IV/NYS Route 96B intersecon. 7. Internal sidewalks should form an inter-connected pedestrian network allowing users to acvely walk amongst the various land use components to be included in the mixed-use neighborhood. Addionally, internal paved recreaonal paths should be designed and installed to encourage bicycle use. 8. Transportaon demand management (“TDM”) strategies should be considered and implemented, when praccal, to reduce oﬀ-site vehicular trips. The applicaon materials received thus far for The Gateway and Woods projects incorporate most of the recommendaons above. Per the GEIS Findings Statement, the New York State Department of Transportaon (DOT) requires an updated traﬃc study for each phase of development where modiﬁcaons and/or addional migaon is proposed in the NYS DOT right of way (Danby Road/NYS Route 96B). The applicaon materials include a Trip Generaon Memorandum – The Woods at SouthWorks, prepared by LaBella Associates, D.P.C., dated June 29, 2026, that is applicable only to The Woods project and indicates that the project will generate less traﬃc and require fewer migaons than listed in the GEIS for this phase of the redevelopment. The Woods project includes a proposed traﬃc signal (light) at the intersecon of Danby Road/NYS Route 96B, Coddington Road, and project Driveway IV. The Woods project also includes a sidewalk on the west side of Danby Road/NYS Route 96B, from the City/Town of Ithaca line to close to the current project limits. Addionally, porons of the applicaon materials show a signalized intersecon at Coddington Road and Danby Road/NYS Route 96B; it is unclear whether this will be a signalized or unsignalized crossing treatment for pedestrians across Danby Road/NYS Route 96B and whether marked crosswalks (GEIS speciﬁes high-visibility pedestrian crossing treatments as a general migaon measure at all intersecons) or alternate safety countermeasures are proposed. THowever, the submied traﬃc analysis does not account for the SouthWorks Gateway project in the City or consider the geometry changes to Danby Road/NYS Route 96B implemented since the GEIS, which includes a road diet (reduced vehicle travel lane) and construcon of sidewalks along the east 8 side of Danby Road/NYS Route 96B between Ithaca College and the City line (noted in #3 above). The impacts of the Woods and Gateway projects on the surrounding road networks were already ancipated in the GEIS. To comply with the GEIS and NYS DOT traﬃc study requirements, the applicant team is currently working on a traﬃc study that will evaluate both proposals but must wait unl aer Cornell University and Ithaca College students move in to accurately represent traﬃc condions along the studied roadways. This should be added as a condion of preliminary site plan approval that must be sasﬁed before consideraon of ﬁnal site plan approval. Since Danby Road/NYS Route 96B is under the jurisdicon of the NYS DOT, the Planning Board should also require correspondence from the NYS DOT stang that the proposed migaons are acceptable before considering ﬁnal site plan approval for The Woods project. Correspondence received from NYS DOT Region 3 on July 9, 2026, indicates that the migaons required by the May 21, 2019, Findings Statement relave to Transportaon and Circulaon (Secon G) such as sidewalk, turn lanes, and a 3- color signal, remain current unl an updated traﬃc study is submied for NYS DOT review. The GEIS implementaon of a Transportaon Demand Management (TDM) strategy was a large part of the general migaon proposed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips to and from the project and to promote alternave transportaon opons. The GEIS contained a requirement for a Monitoring and Migaon Implementaon Plan (MMI) to evaluate the eﬀecveness of any TDM strategies as the various elements of the overall SouthWorks project developed. The applicaon materials for The Woods project incorporate the required TDM strategies for the project. As noted above, the site plans show sidewalks along the west side of Danby Road/NYS Route 96B that connect to the exisng sidewalk system in the City of Ithaca, along with internal site pedestrian connecons, and mul-use paths that will connect to the Gateway project in the City of Ithaca. Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 51 of the Findings Statement, there are no changes in Levels of Service (LOS) beyond those idenﬁed in the GEIS. The Woods project does not exceed a mixed-use development of 1.7 million square feet or square footage allocaons for the land uses set forth in the GEIS. 8. Ulies- The proposed acon may result in a change to the exisng ulies. The GEIS evaluated water, sanitary sewer, natural gas/electricity use, and lighng ulies associated with the overall SouthWorks development. There are three separate water ulies in the Town of Ithaca that are not connected to the City of Ithaca system. The two that could serve The Woods project are located along Danby Road/NYS Route 96B, near proposed Driveway IV, and running east- west across the site from the proposed Gateway Trail to Danby Road/NYS Route 96B near proposed Driveway V. The GEIS esmated a 161,500 gallon-per-day total water usage for full buildout of the SouthWorks development. The Woods project will ulize a small fracon of that GEIS threshold. The water capacity, pressure, and ﬂow of available water has been evaluated for The Woods project. The town issued a memo to the applicant dated 7/20/2026, from Jusn McNeal, Town Director of Engineering, and Joseph Slater, Town Director of Public Works/Highway Superintendent, that states that a preliminary analysis of the town system was performed to determine the availability of the system to support the project, and that the town’s Danby Road tank grid has the ability to serve The Woods project. The town will require a “Will Serve” leer from the applicant, should the applicant decide to dedicate water ulies to the town. This will be added as a condion of site plan approval. 9 In terms of ﬁre ﬂow and number of required ﬁre hydrants, the applicant has been communicang with Marty Moseley, Town Director of Code Enforcement, to evaluate the ﬁre ﬂow to serve The Woods project. The required ﬁre ﬂow must be approved by the Code Enforcement Department in accordance with the New York State Fire Code. This will also be as a condion of site plan approval. Regarding sanitary sewer service, the memo referenced above notes that the poron of the sewer main that is solely owned by the town of Ithaca has the ability to serve The Woods project, but there is a jointly owned sewer interceptor located within the City of Ithaca that will need to be evaluated for capacity. The town is currently contracted with a ﬁrm to perform a sewer study of the jointly-owned sanitary sewer interceptors to determine exisng system capacies. This was ancipated in the GEIS and will be a condion of site plan approval. Relave to natural gas and electricity usage, The Woods project will meet LEED ND criteria and include eﬃcient design and renewable energy systems necessary to comply with the NYS and Town Energy Codes. This was ancipated by the GEIS and is included in the applicaon materials. Regarding lighng, the GEIS requires submission of a full photometric plan and lighng that complies with the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighng Law (Town Code Chapter 173) and the Town of Ithaca Streetlights Policy (Town Board Resoluon No. 2023- 191). The GEIS further requires proposed LED lighng to comply with the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council’s recommendaon for maximum color temperature less than or equal to 3000k. The Woods applicaon materials contain several lighng sheets (Sheets L301 through L07) that contain the lighng elements required by the GEIS. All lighng appears to comply with the requirements, and speciﬁc details will be evaluated during the site plan review process. Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 51 of the Findings Statement, there are no changes to the SouthWorks project’s total demand beyond the calculaons outlined in the GEIS. The Woods project complies with the Ulity thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. 9. Air Quality- The proposed acon may include a state-regulated air emission source. The GEIS examined the US EPA’s Naonal Air Quality Standards for six common pollutants and an assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from on-site emissions. The six common pollutants were carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, parculates, and sulfur dioxide. The GEIS also evaluated whether the overall SouthWorks project would result in violaons of ambient air quality standards of health related guidance values for vehicle emissions, building emissions, and historical impacts. No migaon measures were recommended for vehicle emissions other than those set forth under traﬃc migaon measures. New buildings will meet LEED ND criteria and will comply with the Town of Ithaca and NYS Energy Codes. As menoned in #5 above, the Findings Statement requires evaluaon of areas designated for new construcon in the CW2 Subarea for the potenal for soil vapor intrusion when habitable structures are planned to be constructed in the vicinity of the former NCR and Ithaca College sewer lines. Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 51 of the Findings Statement, The Woods project will not cause carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to exceed 2,686 tons/year. The Woods project complies with the Air Quality thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. Further analysis and migaon associated 10 with any soil vapor intrusion along the NCR and Ithaca College sewer lines will be a condion of site plan approval. 10. Visual and Aesthec Resources- The proposed acon creates a sharp contrast to a scenic or aesthec resource. The GEIS analyzed potenal visual and aesthec impacts of the full SouthWorks buildout with a visual impact study containing a viewshed analysis and before/aer photo-simulaons at 18 viewpoints. The area with the most potenal impact was along NYS Route 96B in both the City and Town of Ithaca. This parcular area was captured in viewsheds 9 and 10 in the GEIS. The analysis found that all other viewsheds would have fewer visual impacts, as proposed new structures would either not be visible at all, would blend in with exisng structures, or would be migated by careful landscape and building design, per the PDZ requirements. Per Findings Statement requirements, The Woods applicants have submied a revised visual analysis that is speciﬁc to The Woods development. The analysis models the one that was submied during the GEIS review. As noted in #1 above (Land Use and Zoning), the PDZ contains requirements for building types, building designs, park/civic/open spaces, thoroughfare designs, landscaping and buﬀers, setback dimensions, fence/wall designs, outdoor lighng designs, and other items. The speciﬁc requirements for the CW2A Subarea were intended to create new development along the NYS Route 96B/Danby Road frontage that is similar in character and architecture as exisng structures along the road. The applicaon materials contain renderings to show how The Woods project ﬁts in with the structures along NYS Route 96B/Danby Road and the rest of the area (see Exterior Elevaon sheets, Renderings, and Visual Impact Analysis). Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 51 of the Findings Statement, the proposed maximum building heights do not exceed those outlined in the GEIS or in the PDZ requirements. There is no vegetaon loss in Subarea CW1, and there is no material change to the size or locaon of Subarea CW1. The Woods project complies with the Visual and Aesthec Resources thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. The loss of trees and other vegetaon will be migated with a robust re-planng and landscaping plan that complies with the requirements of the PDZ. 11. Community Services- The proposed acon may create a demand for addional community services (e.g., schools, police, ﬁre, solid waste management, etc.) The GEIS evaluated the potenal demands for addional school, police, ﬁre, solid waste management, and other community services for the enre SouthWorks redevelopment project (95 acres, nearly 2 million square feet of development, up to 915 residenal units, mix of commercial and industrial uses, etc.), and found that such services were adequate to serve the SouthWorks project. The Woods project will only require services for 130 residenal units on 7+/- acres. The GEIS threshold chart did not contain a threshold for impacts to Community Services. 12. Open Space and Recreaon- The proposed acon may result in a loss of recreaonal opportunies. The GEIS studied potenal impacts to open space and recreaon as a result of the overall SouthWorks development, including impacts to New York State parks, town parks and trails, and other exisng 11 facilies. There are no designated open space or recreaonal areas on the site of the proposed The Woods project. The project will create open space and recreaonal opportunies for residents living within the development via the construcon of parks, playgrounds, trails, sidewalks, and pedestrian connecons. Residents of The Woods and in the community will be able to take advantage of trail connecons from The Woods project to the City of Ithaca poron of the SouthWorks project, and into downtown Ithaca or along the Gateway Trail. Per the GEIS threshold chart on page 51 of the Findings Statement, there are no non-recreaonal facilies proposed in Subarea CW1. There is no material change to the size or locaon of Subarea CW1. The Woods project complies with the Open Space and Recreaon thresholds listed in the GEIS Findings Statement. 13. Construcon Acvies- The proposed acon may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighng. The GEIS examined potenal impacts associated with construcon of the overall SouthWorks development, considering construcon staging areas, migaons for soil erosion and dust control, solid waste management, noise, air, and light emissions during construcon, construcon traﬃc impacts, etc. Such impacts associated with construcon are temporary and expected to cease once the project is built. The GEIS threshold chart did not contain a threshold for impacts from Construcon Acvies. However, the Findings Statement contains a long list of migaon measures to lessen potenal impacts associated with construcon. Most of the items on the list will be added as standard condions of site plan approval. The Woods project materials also include a project-speciﬁc construcon phasing and logiscs plan that will be reviewed during the site plan approval process. 14. Other Environmental Factors- There are no other potenal environmental impacts (not discussed above) associated with The Woods project that were not analyzed in the GEIS. Planning Board Determination: Based on the GEIS threshold conditions outlined in the Findings Statement, the GEIS checklist attachment, and the reasons stated above, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency in the environmental review, finds that the Woods project does not exceed the threshold conditions outlined in the Findings Statement and therefore does not require additional environmental review. __________________________ ________Caitlin Cameron____________ Signature of Responsible Oﬃcial Name of Responsible Oﬃcial _________Chair ___________ _________________________________ Title of Responsible Oﬃcial Date PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Preliminary Site Plan, Subdivision Approval The Woods at SouthWorks Residential Development NYS Route 96B/Danby Road Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-3 Town of Ithaca Planning Board DATE TBD WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the SouthWorks Woods project located off NYS Route 96B/Danby Road, in Town of Ithaca Planned Development Zone No.16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed site-specific SouthWorks Woods mixed- income residential project, which comprises a portion of the overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, and involves the construction of eight residential buildings with a total of 130 mixed-income apartments, including a community room, lounge, fitness center, offices, maintenance areas, and storage on a 6.09-ac portion of the SouthWorks project site. The Woods project also involves the development of internal roads and infrastructure, a playground, sidewalks and path connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping, outdoor lighting, parking, and other site improvements. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will first determine if the project exceeds the threshold conditions that were outlined in the GEIS Findings Statement, therefore requiring additional or supplemental environmental review. The board will then consider Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the project. Shift Chainworks Owner 1 LLC, Owner; Beacon Communities, LLC, Applicant; James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, PC, Agent; 2. The overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project is located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. It is a proposed mixed-use development consisting of residential, office, commercial, retail, restaurant/café, warehousing/distribution, manufacturing, and open space. The City of Ithaca, as the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the South Works (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS on March 26, 2019; 3. The Town of Ithaca, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review of the SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS on May 21, 2019. The Findings Statement included a threshold condition chart and checklist for future site-specific projects associated with the overall development; 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the Lead Agency in the environmental review of The Woods at SouthWorks project, at their meeting on August 18, 2026, determined that The Woods at SouthWorks project did not exceed the threshold conditions outlined in the SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project GEIS Findings Statement, and that the Woods at SouthWorks project did not require additional environmental review. The Board reviewed and accepted as adequate a completed GEIS threshold checklist and Part 3 EAF, prepared by Town staff, dated July 28, 2026, along with a project narrative with twenty (21) attachments, including: a visual impact analysis; a letter from LaBella Associates, dated June 24, 2026, regarding soil vapor intrusion mitigation; correspondence between the applicant and Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement, regarding fire apparatus configuration and Code requirements; a letter from Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, D.P.C., dated July 20, 2026, regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans; two letters from LaBella Page 2 of 4 Associates, one dated June 29, 2026, regarding traffic assessment, and one dated August 3, 2026, regarding traffic signal warrant and left-turn lane assessment; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prepared by Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, D.P.C., revised July 2026; a Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Foundation Design, P.C., dated March 10, 2026; an Excavation Plan, prepared by Pike; a letter from Timothy Faulkner, P.E., Fisher Associates, D.P.C. dated July 28, 2026, regarding SouthWorks Beacon Woods transportation assessment; Site Plan Drawings titled “Beacon Communities, The Woods at SouthWorks, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by SWBR, dated August 14, 2024, most recently revised August 10, 2026, including sheets C100, C200, C300, C301 through C306, C400 through C407, C500 through C505, C600, C601, C700 through C702, C800 through C802, C900, and C901; Site Plan and Architectural Renderings, prepared by SWBR (no date); Exterior Elevations and Detail sheets, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, including sheets A201- A, A201-B1, A202-B2, A203-B3, A201-C1, A202-C2, and A203-C3; Layout and Materials plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, revised June 29, 2026, including sheets L-101 through L-104; Planting Plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, including sheets L-401 through L-405; Lighting Plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, revised June 29, 2026, including sheets L-301 through L-307; Construction Phasing Plan, titled “The Woods Draft Phasing and Logistics Plan,” dated 6-29-26; and other materials; 5. At a Public Hearing held on August 18, 2026 [and September 1, 2026?], the Planning Board reviewed, and accepted as adequate additional project information, including a letter from Fagan Engineering, dated July 7, 2026 (updated August 10, 2026), regarding stream setback mitigation; a letter from SWBR, dated August 10, 2026, regarding cladding materials in compliance with Town Code §271-17 (F)(6)(d); a letter from Beacon Communities, LLC, dated August 10, 2026, regarding Center for Community Transportation/TCAT Engagement; and revised site plan materials noted in #4 (most recent revision date of August 10, 2026); 6. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law §§239- l et seq., and such Department responded in a [date-not yet received], letter from Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l, -m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the proposed action [will / will not have significant county-wide or inter-community impact]; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That, pursuant to Town Code §270-219.5.I, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed stream setback mitigation plan associated with the project, which is described in the letter listed in Whereas #5 above from Fagan Engineering, dated July 7, 2026 (updated August 10, 2026); and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed The Woods at SouthWorks, as described in the materials listed in Whereas #4 and #5 above, subject to the following conditions, to be met: Before final site plan/final subdivision approval: a. Receipt of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, b. Submission of revised architectural plans and renderings (Exterior Elevations and Detail sheets, prepared by SWBR) that comply with the cladding requirements listed in Town Code §271-17(F)(6)(d), Page 3 of 4 c. Approval from the Town of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement that all fire flow calculations are in accordance with New York State Fire Code, and that all fire access issues listed in the memo from Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement, dated 7/21/26, have been satisfied (memo attached), d. Submission of a traffic study to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and Town of Ithaca that evaluates the potential impacts of The Woods and Gateway projects on the surrounding roadway, and includes mitigations to said impacts, e. Submission of material specification sheets for all proposed outdoor lighting, covered bicycle facilities/charging areas, and bicycle racks, f. Approval by the Town Board of the concept and location of any proposed dedicated utilities (water, sanitary sewer), and infrastructure (roads, streetlights, sidewalks, etc.), g. Coordination with all utility companies (including NYSEG and Verizon) to assure that they have no concerns associated with the project’s connection to the electrical grid, with the burying of utility lines, or with other project elements, h. Submission of letters of commitment from Ithaca Bikeshare and Ithaca Carshare that they will locate bicycles and vehicles, respectively, on the project site, and from Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, Inc. (TCAT) that it intends to serve the project site, Before issuance of a Building Permit: i. Satisfaction of all comments identified in the memorandum prepared by Barton and Loguidice to Justin McNeal, Town Director of Engineering, dated August 10, 2026 (memo attached), j. Submission, review, execution, and filing of an Operation, Maintenance and Reporting agreement for the proposed stormwater management facilities, with the Town of Ithaca, specifying the ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the stormwater system, including: (i) Submission of an access easement, or other mechanism, to assure Town of Ithaca access to the stormwater facilities, (ii) Review and approval of the access easement and the Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement by the Attorney for the Town and the Town Engineer, and (iii)Town Board authorization to allow the Town Supervisor to sign any necessary easements and the Stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement associated with the project, k. Submission of an approved Highway Work Permit (Commercial Driveway Access Permit and/or Utility Permits, as applicable) from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) for improvements within the NYS Route 96B/Danby Road right-of-way, that references mitigations as required by the aforementioned traffic study in “d” above. The Town should be made aware of any additional plan modifications that may be required by the NYSDOT, as well as any resultant Page 4 of 4 impacts to the current site plan, l. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk Office; and submission of a copy of the receipt of filing to the Planning Department, m. Dedication to and acceptance by the Town Board, for any proposed public utilities (water, sanitary sewer) and infrastructure (roads, streetlights, sidewalks, etc.), n. Per the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) Record of Decision Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, submission of proof that the former NCR and Ithaca College sewer lines have been evaluated for potential soil vapor intrusion, and, if required, mitigated in accordance with NYS DEC and NYS Department of Health requirements. Before issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy: o. Submission of any required executed easements, licenses, or other legal agreements involving Town or City property, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town. DEPARTMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1783 codes@town.ithaca.ny.us 7/21/26 Re: South Works Development comments and questions related to The Woods phase (DEV-26-3) Review re-submitted documents (SWBR 7/7/26 memo and Fagan Engineers Letter dated 7/7/26) *Fagan responses have reincorporated into this memo from a SWBR letter dated 7/7/26 and are underlined. Town responses are identified in bold text from 7/21/26. 1. Drawing C5 identifies a small building that is currently in a water or sewer easement area. If this is a Town of Ithaca easement, the Department of Public Works or Engineering Department should be consulted to verify if a building can be placed in the easement. a. Response: Fagan- The easement is being relocated away from the small structure. b. TOI Response: Thank you for your response. 2. The stream setback has not been identified in the drawings as required in section 270- 219.5D (14) of Town of Ithaca Code. a. Response: Fagan- Stream adjacencies were identified in the GEIS and a variance will be requested. Further information needs will be identified with on site meeting with town on 6/30. b. TOI Response: The stream setback map (Attach 16) that has been provided does not have a legend to identify zone 1 and zone 2, nor does the lay identify distances that the stream setback is impacted. Please update the site plan to show these items. will still need to be provided on the site plan. We will look for an area variance application to be provided to the Town, with respect to the stream setback. 3. Buildings C1, C2, and C3 all appear to be attached. Effectively, this creates one large apartment building and not three separate apartment buildings. Please provide details of how this complies with section 271-17F(2)(h) of Town of Ithaca Code. a. Response: Section 271-17F(2)(h) is specific to building facade length rather than overall building length. Buildings Cl, C2, and C3 are separated into individual sections where each facade does not exceed 180' in length. The connection corridors between each building facing plan north are below grade (concealed) and one-story facing plan south. These are also set back 30'-0" from the main facades. b. TOI Response: Thank you for your response. Please provide verification how you meet all setbacks for each of the building types in section 271-17F(2)(h) NOTE: A letter from Codes was provided to the applicant in June 2026. The applicant provided responses and included those responses in their PB narrative. This letter is in response to those responses. 4. Buildings B2 and B3 appear to be attached. Effectively, this creates one large apartment building and not two separate apartment buildings. Please provide details of how this complies with section 271-17F(2)(h) of Town of Ithaca Code. a. Response: B2 and B3 are connected by a one story mechanical room. The intent is to provide a single mechanical room that serves both B buildings rather than one mechanical room for each. This facade facing plan north of the mechanical room is concealed below grade and the facade facing plan south is set back 10'-8"from the B buildings facades. As noted in response to comment 3,section 271-17F(2)(h)is specific to building facade length rather than overall building length. The intent of concealing one side of the mechanical room and setting the other side back from B2 and B3 was to comply with the facade length requirement of the section. b. TOI Response: Thank you for your response. Please provide verification how you meet all setbacks for each of the building types in section 271-17F(2)(f). 5. It cannot be determined which buildings will have Fire Department Connections (FDC) and standpipe systems. Please provided information as to where this can be identified on the plans. a. Section 507.5.1.1 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code requires hydrants to be located within 100’ of a standpipe system installed. b. Response: FDC locations will be identified on the lower portion of building Cl, C2,and C2that are accessible from the Aerial Apparatus Access Road. Hydrants will be added located within 100'of these FDC locations. c. TOI Response: Thank you for your response, it appears that buildings C1, C2, and C3 FDC’s all will be approximately 45’ of a hydrant. 6. The grade of the fire apparatus access road appears to exceed 10% in several areas. Section D103.2 limits the grade to 10% unless approved by the fire code official. Please provide additional information as to where a 10% grade is exceeded and for what distance. If this is already provided, please identify where this can be located in the existing plans or details. a. Response: Fagan-The Woods site is located on a sloped hill and reductions in slopes of less than 10% are not feasible. Request approval from Code official to increase the slope allowance. b. TOI Response: Please provide a site plan identifying where the grades exceed the 10% value. 7. The fire apparatus access road that is directly behind the “proposed 9 unit building #1 and #2) does not appear to provide a fire apparatus access turnaround as identified in section D103.1 of the2025 NYS Fire Code. a. Response: Danby Road is considered the Fire Apparatus access road rather than the parking lot located plan south for these two buildings. An existing fire hydrant is also located on Danby Road adjacent to the proposed driveway access to the parking lot for buildings A1 and A2. b. TOI Response: Thank you for your response. We would agree, based on the location of the “proposed 9 unit building #1 and #2” and proximity to Danby Road. 8. The height of the buildings is not clear. Do the building exceed 30’ grom the grade plane to the highest roof surface (For purposes of this section, the highest roof surface shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall, or the top of parapet walls, whichever is greater.)? This will need to be provided to determine if aerial fire apparatus access roads are required to be provided in accordance with section D105 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code. a. Response: Buildings Al,A2,Bl, B2, B3 are less than 30' when calculating the average grade plane and an Aerial Apparatus Access is not required. These calculations will be included in the code analysis drawings. Buildings Cl, C2, and C3 require Aerial Apparatus Access provided by the road located at the lower side of these three buildings. b. TOI Response: Thank you for your response. Based on this information, Road A will need to have a clear width of 26’ in the immediate vicinity of the building, per section D105.2. The current proposal shows a roadway width of 20’ with parking areas on each side of the roadway The roadway is considered to be the fire apparatus access road and the parking areas appear to be an obstruction. 9. Fire Hydrants are required to have a minimum fire apparatus access road width 26’ excusive of shoulders. Some hydrants do not appear to meet this requirement, as identified in section D103.1 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code. a. Response: Fagan - Hydrants are located at roads 26'+ at code required distances. Additional hydrants will be located along the lower side of the C buildings within 100' of the FDC's. These are supplemental hydrants that are in addition to the required hydrants b. TOI Response: Please note that any hydrant that is installed is required to comply with section D103.1 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code. Based on the map provided it does not appear that there are any hydrants that are proposed on the lower side of the C buildings. There is also a hydrant that is located close to the traffic circle that appears to not comply with D103.1 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code. Please show all hydrant locations with the clear areas identified. 10. Adequate turning radius of the fire apparatus access roads do not appear to provided. Based on turning radius requirements from the IFD, the following radius are required: a. b. Response: Fagan-The turning radius was calculated based on the town's equipment requirements(see comment 11) c. TOI Response: Please place the radius in the site plans, as it appears that they were not included in the lates submission. We will need to confirm that all radius comply with the Ithaca Fire Department equipment requirements. 11. The fire apparatus access road appears to be modeled after a fire truck that is 26.25’, as identified on sheet C13. Based on our understanding of the truck used for the IFD, this truck dimension is closer to 45’. Please provide updated drawings with the correct fire apparatus size to show how the piece of fire apparatus would traverse the road system. Feel free to contact the IFD directly to obtain the fire apparatus turning radius and size requirements. a. Response: Fagan -The 45'equipment was used to model the access road requirements. b. TOI Response: Thank you for the updated truck specifications being called out on the submitted plan. 12. Please identify how the project will identify “No Parking -Fire Lane” . Fire apparatus access road that are 20’-26’ are required to have fire lane signs installed, per section D103.6.1 and 503.3 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code. a. Response: Fagan -Access aisles adjacent to the accessible parking adjacent to the loading area between C2 and C3 can provide a dedicated fire lane access point. b. TOI Response: Thank you for your response. This is still unclear how the “No Parking Fire Lane” will be identified. Please provide a site plan showing details how this will be accomplished. 13. Please provide details on traffic calming devices such as, but not limited to, placement, height, approach angles, etc. a. Response: Fagan SWBR(lA)- Details currently being coordinated b. TOI Response: We look forward to receiving the details on the traffic calming devices. 14. Per section 507.1 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code, please provide fire flow data from the hydrants that will serve the project. Please provide the calculation method used to calculate the fire flow for the buildings. a. Response: Fagan-Reports from City 2023 is available. Town has verbally communicated test results these will be documented In a memo. b. TOI Response: More recent fire flow data is required to be provided to the Town. There are several areas, within the last 3 years, that development may have impacted fire flow from the exiting system. I am not aware of any communication that has occurred from the Town with respect to test results for fire flow. We look forward to receiving the information to verify adequate fire flow. 15. TOI Response: At this time, the Town is requiring the second means of ingress and egress for fire apparatus access in accordance with section 503.1.2 of the 2025 NYS Fire Code, based on the grade exceeding 10%, which may limit access at various times. 16. TOI Response: Additionally, during the 6/30/26 onsite meeting with Jamie Gensel, Justin McNeal, Rob Shepard and Marty Moseley, mountable curbing was discussed for the traffic circle. Please provide the detail cross section of any mountable curbing that will be used for the project and identify the location where it will be used on the site plan. 17. TOI Response: The fire apparatus access plan (attach 17) do not appear to match the site plan documents submitted. For instance, parking areas are still identified in front of fire hydrant locations on the site plans, but the fire apparatus access site plan shows blocked out parking areas. 18. TOI Response: The blocked off fire department access areas along Road A show a “no parking fire access area. This area is the exact length of the fire truck that the site plan uses as a model. It does not appear that the vehicle would be able to park in that area as the traditional parking areas are tight against that area and would not allow for the truck to swing into the area for firefighting activities. 19. TOI Response: Please note that road names will need to be provided to this department for each road that is being proposed. Please provide three road names per road and rank the road names when submitting them to this department. Sincerely, Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca NY, 14850 443 Electronics Parkway, Liverpool, NY 13088 ·Office: 315-457-5200 ·Fax: 315-451-0052 ·BartonandLoguidice.com August 10, 2026 Justin McNeal, Director of Engineering 114 Seven Mile Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Southworks – The Woods Subj: Engineering Review of Site Plan Submission File: 2071.015.001 Dear Members of the Planning Board: Barton & Loguidice, D.P.C. (B&L) has completed a review of the Site Plan Drawings and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) provided on July 7, 2026 prepared by Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, P.C. on behalf of Beacon Communities, LLC (Applicant) for the above-referenced project. B&L’s engineering review focused on grading, drainage, and the submitted SWPPP. Based on our stormwater review, in conjunction with the Town of Ithaca Engineering Department, we offer the following comment suggestions for the Board’s consideration: General 1.A Stormwater operation maintenance and reporting agreement (SOMRA) will need to be filed before a building permit is issued. 2.MS4 Approval will not be issued until a SWPPP Application is submitted to Open Gov and the associated permit fees are paid. Site Plan Drawings 1.All water connections must branch off the private water main line after the meter. 2.Town will provide our standard details for water and sewer infrastructure. These must be used for items that are proposed for dedication. 3.The erosion and sediment control plan should be reviewed for Blue book compliance. The steep slopes on site limit the length of contributing flow for silt fence and silt socks. 4.The site grading appears incomplete. Several contours terminate in spots that are illogical with no tie-in to existing grade. Some contours appear to overlap or branch in multiple directions with multiple tie-ins to existing. Justin McNeal, Director of Engineering August 10, 2026 Page 2 2071015 Southworks SWPPP Review 081026 (ID 3667934).docx 5.Significant portions of the proposed new impervious area are not captured and treated despite appearing to be feasible to capture based on the proposed grading plan. This including portions of “Drive D”, “Road B”, the proposed roundabout, as well as “Road A” and “Drive C” near the tie-in to Morse Place. Roadway edge treatments (curb, gutter, ditch, etc.) are recommended to capture roadway runoff rather than allowing it flow towards proposed infrastructure or off-site untreated. 6.DM-3 and associated 24” HDPE storm pipe is proposed in close proximity to an existing structure. DM-3 appears to be situated with less than 3ft of clearance from outer wall of the manhole to the existing structure and is approximately 8ft deep. Please justify how this infrastructure will be installed without risk of undermining the existing building foundation. 7.Please justify the embankment in close proximity to the structures at 908 Danby Road and how site runoff onto this property will be addressed. 8.The inlet & outlet pipes as well as the proposed underdrain for the underground storage should be depicted on the utility plan. 9.Several sanitary and storm pipes have excessive slope. Sanitary pipe full flow velocities are recommended to be less than 10 ft/s (approx. 8% slope for 8in pipe), and sewers on over a 20% slope require anchoring in accordance with the 10 States Standards. The Applicant should consider reducing sanitary pipe slopes through the use of drop structures or other means to reduce flow velocities. Storm pipe slopes should be reduced by utilizing drop across structures where applicable. 10.Allowing the 21” RCP storm pipe running under Danby Road (State Route 96B) to daylight and attempting to pick up the surface discharge in a grated structure is not a recommended practice. This 21" storm appears to have a significant drainage area along State Rte 96B. Debris accumulation or inadequate grate capacity has potential to cause significant bypass that could result in localized flooding. It should be evaluated if the pipe may be connected directly to a structure and conveyed around the project site. 11.The Stormtech Outlet Structure Detail provides elevations that are not consistent with the submitted ADS drawings. 12.Please justify the placement of CB-22, CB-24 and CB-25. These locations do not appear logical based on the grading provided. 13.Silt fence should be installed parallel to contours in accordance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Blue Book). 14.The Erosion & Sediment Control Plan should provide locations for concrete washouts, soil stockpiling, and material staging. Justin McNeal, Director of Engineering August 10, 2026 Page 3 2071015 Southworks SWPPP Review 081026 (ID 3667934).docx SWPPP 1.Please provide a table showing the Developed Drainage Peak Runoff Rates that takes the stormwater practices into account (true pre vs post development flows showing actual flow leaving site). 2.Provide a drawing showing an extreme flood conveyance route for the stormwater entering the site through the Route 96B pipe. A flood conveyance route may be needed for other areas of the site depending on the provided pipe capacities. 3.A rain garden detail is provided on the plans but not noted in the narrative or called out on any of the site plans. Please remove or provide clarification on where this will be located. 4.Please include the Town of Ithaca's inspection requirements noted in Chapter 228 of the Town of Ithaca Code. 5.All storage chambers not designed to meet minimum clearance to groundwater or bedrock (2’-0” min. separation) shall include an impermeable liner in accordance with the Stormwater Design Manual. The impermeable liner shall be designed and installed by a qualified professional in accordance with Note 11 on Page 1 of the ADS Drawing Set. 6.Calculating full-flow capacity of individual storm sewer pipes using Manning's equation is an overestimate of the hydraulic capacity of the overall conveyance system. A hydraulic analysis of the storm sewer network that accounts for energy losses at structures, inlet and outlet control, tailwater effects, and other hydraulic constraints must be submitted to adequately assess system performance under the design storms. 7.The Applicant should submit justification for the value of 13,336 CF of RRv provided as stated in the Water Quality Treatment section of the SWPPP body, preferably through use of the GI Worksheets. The GI Worksheets currently submitted do not support this claim. 8.Please clarify the total area of new impervious. Different values are provided in the Water Quality Treatment Section of the SWPPP body, Question 22 of the eNOI, and the modeling. 9.Please explain how total disturbed area will remain under 5 acres for the duration of construction as indicated by the response to Question 23 of the eNOI. Given the site area is approximately 8.3 acres, the provided construction sequence does not indicate disturbance phasing that would support this claim. 10.Please revise the drainage maps to conform to the requirements of Appendix E of the Stormwater Management Design Manual. Most critically, please provide existing contours on Sheets D1 & D2 as well as proposed contours and all storm infrastructure on Sheet D2. As currently shown, the drainage areas and Tc Paths cannot be evaluated. 11.Drainage Areas PDA-1 and PDA-3 contain significant portions of new impervious area that is not captured or treated by any SMP. For new development, WQv must be addressed for all proposed new impervious. Justin McNeal, Director of Engineering August 10, 2026 Page 4 2071015 Southworks SWPPP Review 081026 (ID 3667934).docx 12.The proposed model routing should be refined to more accurately represent the proposed storm conveyance. At a minimum, Drainage Areas 2-A and 2-B should be combined such that the flow at this outfall may be evaluated. 13.Please review the inverts provided for Pond 4P as they do not appear to match the ADS drawings. 14.All GI worksheets must be updated to reflect the current state of the Site Plans. a.The swale depicted on the Site Plans does not meet the requirements of a Dry Swale. This worksheet should be removed and no treatment credit should be taken. b.Minimum RRv is calculated based off new impervious area. Please update the Step 4 worksheet to provide only the acreage of new impervious. c.The Site Plans do not indicate the location or drainage patterns to the 109 tree plantings proposed for an area reduction. A tree planting detail that conforms with the Stormwater Design Manual must be included. The area that is directly tributary to the tree plantings must be delineated; this is the only area eligible for reduction. The 5.33 acres currently shown to be tributary to the tree plantings appears unlikely based on the Site Plans. d.The Flow Based Alternative Practices (ADS Arcadia Hydrodynamic Separators) shown on the Site Plans are not on the NYSDEC list for Verified Proprietary Practices for New Development and are thus ineligible to provide WQv treatment for this project. Please reference the NYSDEC Stormwater Toolbox for the list of proprietary practices approved for new development. At this time, we recommend that the Applicant address the engineering review comments presented herein, and submit revised documents/additional information to the Town for further review. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding our engineering review of this project. Sincerely, BARTON & LOGUIDICE, D.P.C. Charles A. White, P.E., LEED AP Vice President MJK/jjb cc: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning, Town of Ithaca (email only) 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com July 7, 2026 Update: August 10, 2026 Marty Moseley, Director Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: SouthWorks Woods – Preliminary Plan Stream Setback Variance SWBR Project No. 22232.00 FE Project 2011.104-008 Dear Marty, The proposed Woods project includes two streams within the project boundary as defined in the Town Stream Setback Map. Both streams are classified those with less than 175 acre drainage areas. The following is a screenshot of the map: The required stream setback is 35 feet from the centerline with Zone 1 Setback of 20 feet and Zone 2 Setback of 15 feet. The first stream (Stream A - northern-most) is the roadside swale along Morse Place Road. This stream is actually part of the Danby Road storm sewer system and flows across the road into the site via a 30-inch storm sewer and flows along the existing SouthWorks driveway (Morse Place). Page 2 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com The second stream (Stream B – southern-most) is the discharge of the western roadside swale of Danby Road that flows south to north which diverts west into the project site. The following is a depiction of the Site Plan with an overlay of the stream setbacks: The project will result in limited encroachment into the associated stream setback areas; however, the design has been developed to avoid direct impacts to the stream channels to the maximum extent practicable and to provide appropriate stabilization, stormwater management, and restoration measures to offset the effects of the proposed encroachments. Stream A Stream A is the northernmost of the two regulated streams. Two driveway crossings of Stream A are necessary to provide site circulation and access. At Crossing No. 1, the driveway will cross Stream A utilizing an open-bottom box culvert. The structure will span from bank to bank so that the existing stream bottom will remain open and the stream channel will not be replaced with a conventional closed pipe. This approach minimizes direct disturbance to the stream channel and allows the existing streambed to remain beneath the crossing. Stream A – Crossing 1: Looking Upstream Stream A – Crossing 1: Looking Downstream Page 3 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com At Crossing No. 2, the existing drainage feature consists of a constructed concrete flume rather than a natural stream channel. The proposed driveway crossing will utilize a pipe culvert through this area. Because the crossing occurs at an existing concrete flume, the proposed work avoids disturbance to a natural streambed at this location. Stream A – Crossing 2: Looking Upstream Stream A – Crossing 2: Looking Downstream The driveway crossings have been located and designed to limit the extent of disturbance within the Stream A setback while providing the access and circulation necessary for the development. Stream B Stream B is the southernmost regulated stream. No direct disturbance to the stream channel or edge of bank is proposed. The requested variance is associated with grading and placement of fill within portions of the regulated stream setback. All proposed fill within the setback will be permanently stabilized. Depending upon location, slope, and hydraulic conditions, stabilization will consist of riprap, turf reinforcement matting, vegetation, or an appropriate combination of these measures. These measures will provide long-term erosion protection and minimize the potential for sediment migration toward Stream B. The project therefore maintains separation between the proposed development and the actual Stream B channel while limiting the requested relief to work within the setback itself. Stormwater and Erosion Control Stream B: Looking Downstream at Nearest Point Stream B: Looking Downhill at nearest Point Page 4 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Stormwater and Erosion Control The project is subject to a Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and coverage under the applicable NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. The SWPPP will address both construction-phase and post-construction stormwater management and will include erosion and sediment controls, stabilization requirements, construction sequencing, inspection and maintenance requirements, and permanent stormwater management practices. Particular attention will be given to construction activities occurring within or adjacent to the stream setback areas. Disturbed slopes will be stabilized promptly, and appropriate erosion and sediment controls will be installed between disturbed areas and the streams during construction. Permanent stabilization measures will be incorporated into the final design to minimize erosion and sediment transport following construction. Mitigation The applicant proposes the following measures as the mitigation package associated with the requested Stream Setback area variance: • Minimize direct stream disturbance. The project has been designed to avoid direct impacts to Stream B and to limit Stream A impacts to two necessary driveway crossings. • Open-bottom crossing at Stream A Crossing No. 1. An open-bottom box culvert will span the stream from bank to bank, maintaining the existing streambed beneath the proposed driveway. • Utilize the existing altered channel at Stream A Crossing No. 2. The second crossing will occur where the drainage feature is already conveyed through a constructed concrete flume, thereby avoiding a new crossing of an undisturbed natural streambed. • Protect Stream B. No work is proposed at the Stream B edge of bank or within the stream channel. Encroachment is limited to grading and fill within the setback. • Permanent stabilization. All fill and disturbed slopes within the stream setback areas will be permanently stabilized using riprap, turf reinforcement matting, vegetation, or other appropriate stabilization measures based upon final design conditions. • Comprehensive stormwater management. A Full SWPPP will be prepared and implemented, and NYSDEC SPDES permit coverage will be obtained. Stormwater management practices will be designed to control runoff, reduce erosion, and minimize sediment and pollutant loading to the streams. • Construction-phase protection. Enhanced erosion and sediment controls will be provided adjacent to the regulated stream corridors, with disturbed areas stabilized as soon as practicable following construction. • Placement of native riparian plantings within available disturbed portions of the setback. The proposed mitigation follows the same general approach reflected in prior Town stream setback reviews, where the Town has considered measures that improve or protect riparian conditions, reduce erosion, provide permanent vegetation, and manage stormwater runoff as appropriate means of mitigating setback encroachments. For example, in its review of the Ithaca Self-Storage project, the Town specifically identified sediment capture through stormwater practices and plantings adjacent to the encroachment as measures that would mitigate impacts to the stream and riparian buffer. Page 5 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Variance Request 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; Response: No. The proposed area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The project is part of the approved redevelopment of the former SouthWorks industrial campus into a mixed- use residential neighborhood consistent with the vision established by the Planned Development Zone (PDZ No. 16) and the associated Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The requested relief is limited to a stream setback encroachment necessary to accommodate the approved site layout while preserving critical project elements, including internal circulation, emergency access, utilities, parking, and open space. The surrounding property has been previously disturbed through decades of industrial use and does not represent an undisturbed riparian corridor. The project includes comprehensive stormwater management, erosion and sediment controls, and restoration landscaping that will improve environmental conditions compared to the existing site. As a result, the requested variance will not alter neighborhood character or adversely affect adjacent properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the area variance; Response: The applicant evaluated alternative site layouts, including modifications to the building footprint, parking configuration, internal roadway alignment, and utility routing to avoid or further reduce encroachment into the stream setback. These alternatives were determined to be impractical because they would substantially reduce the functionality of the proposed development, adversely affect emergency vehicle access, parking, site circulation, utility infrastructure, and compliance with other applicable design requirements. The proposed layout has been refined to minimize the extent of the encroachment while maintaining the project's objectives and preserving the overall site design approved under the Planned Development Zone (PDZ No. 16). Accordingly, there is no other feasible alternative that would provide the same project benefits while avoiding the need for the requested area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; Response: While the requested area variance provides relief from the required stream setback, the encroachment has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable through the site design process. The requested relief is limited to those areas necessary to accommodate the approved residential development, including building placement, internal circulation, emergency access, utilities, and associated infrastructure. The variance does not authorize development throughout the entire setback, nor does it eliminate the function of the remaining stream corridor. The majority of the stream setback will remain undisturbed or will be restored and enhanced with native vegetation. In the context of the overall redevelopment of the former industrial site, the requested relief is limited in scope and represents the minimum variance necessary to achieve the project objective 4. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and Page 6 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Response: The requested area variance will not result in a significant adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. The proposed development incorporates comprehensive erosion and sediment controls, permanent stormwater management practices designed in accordance with New York State requirements, and landscaping that includes restoration with native vegetation. The requested encroachment has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable, and the majority of the regulated stream setback will remain undisturbed or be enhanced as part of the redevelopment. Compared to the site's previous industrial use, the project will reduce impervious coverage in portions of the site, improve stormwater treatment and runoff quality, and provide long-term environmental benefits through remediation, restoration, and sustainable site design. The proposed variance will not adversely affect stream stability, water quality, flood storage, or adjacent properties 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was not self-created. Response: While the need for the area variance arises from the applicant's proposal to redevelop the property, it is largely attributable to the unique physical characteristics and constraints of the site, including the location of the stream corridor, existing topography, and the configuration of the former industrial property. The project has been carefully designed to minimize encroachment into the regulated stream setback while accommodating necessary building locations, emergency access, utilities, stormwater infrastructure, and site circulation. The requested relief is the minimum necessary to allow redevelopment of this long-vacant brownfield property in a manner consistent with the approved Planned Development Zone (PDZ No. 16) and its associated planning objectives. Although the variance may be considered technically self-created, this factor should be afforded limited weight because the proposal has been designed to minimize impacts and provides substantial public and environmental benefits through the redevelopment of a former industrial site. The project is being implemented in accordance with the approved PPDZ No. 16, the GEIS findings, and applicable NYSDEC requirements, all of which include measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts. The requested variance is associated primarily with the two necessary Stream A driveway crossings and grading within the Stream B setback. The project has been designed to avoid direct stream impacts where practicable, minimize the extent of unavoidable encroachment, and provide permanent stabilization and stormwater management measures to protect the streams and their associated riparian corridors. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the project is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact to stream stability, water quality, or the long-term function of the stream corridors. The applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Board consider the proposed mitigation plan in its review and recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the requested Stream Setback area variance. Sincerely, FAGAN ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C. James B. Gensel, P.E., CPESC President August 10, 2026 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Beacon Southworks – The Woods Exterior Finish Palette and Percentages SWBR Project No.25189.00 Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: Regarding the exterior cladding at buildings C1, C2, and C3 – we have calculated the combined percentages of the overall façade materials of the three buildings and they are listed as such: Trespa Pura: 3% Corrugated Metal Panel: 58% Fiber cement siding & panels: 15% Other (windows / storefront): 24% SWBR and Beacon Communities have discussed the Planning Boards comments from the 8/4/2026 meeting regarding the cladding quantity of the corrugated metal panel. We are committed to providing a design that is both acceptable to the planning board and one that also fits within the context of the overall design for both sites at The Woods (Town) and The Gateway (City). We intend to explore ways to decrease the amount of corrugated metal by replacing select areas of this material with the Trespa Pura which is already part of the cladding material palette for the three C buildings. The goal will be to expand the use of the Trespa Pura in an intentional and appropriate way that fits with the design intent and the clients expectations. However, to do this in a thoughtful manner, SWBR will need to engage the client over the next week to explore options before developing a final resolution that we hope is acceptable to the board. Section 271-17(F)(6) lists primary cladding materials as masonry and EIFS (Exterior Insulted Finish System) both of which we feel do not fit the context of either The Woods or The Gateway sites. As we work to revise the exterior cladding percentages we request that the board not require these materials be added to the palettes of the buildings at The Woods. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming board meetings. Sincerely, Brett Gawronski Senior Project Manager 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com July 20, 2026 Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town of Ithaca Planning Department 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: SouthWorks Woods – Preliminary Plan Transportation Demand Management SWBR Project No. 22232.00 FE Project 2011.104-008 Dear Chris, This Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 5.7 of the Chain Works District Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The purpose of this plan is to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel, encourage walking, bicycling, transit use, and ridesharing, and support the multimodal transportation vision established for the SouthWorks redevelopment. The Woods consists of approximately 130 multifamily residential units located within the Town of Ithaca portion of the SouthWorks redevelopment. As a residential neighborhood, many employment-focused TDM strategies identified in the GEIS are not directly applicable; however, the following measures will be implemented to achieve the objectives of the GEIS. TDM Objectives This plan is intended to: • Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. • Encourage transit use. • Promote walking and bicycling. • Improve connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. • Support ridesharing. • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Integrate transportation choices into the daily lives of residents. Proposed TDM Measures A. Pedestrian Connectivity The project includes: • Internal sidewalk network connecting all residential buildings. • ADA-accessible pedestrian routes. • Future trail/sidewalk connections to the SouthWorks street network. • Direct pedestrian access to future phases of redevelopment. • Connections to regional sidewalks and trails as they are constructed. Page 2 TDM Plan July 20, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com These improvements provide safe pedestrian circulation and reduce dependence on automobiles for internal trips. B. Bicycle Facilities The development will provide: • Long-term bicycle parking for residents. • Short-term bicycle parking for visitors. • Bicycle racks/lockers located near building entrances. Includes charging stations. • Bicycle access to the future SouthWorks trail system. • Connections to existing and planned bicycle facilities throughout the SouthWorks redevelopment. C. Transit Access Residents will have access to: • Existing TCAT transit service along South Aurora Street. • Pedestrian connections to nearby transit stops. • Transit information included in resident welcome materials. • Real-time transit information where feasible through online resources. The property management team will encourage residents to utilize TCAT for work, shopping, and recreational trips by providing a Welcome Mobility Package for every new resident, including TCAT information, bicycle maps, walking maps, and local amenities. D. Transportation Information Upon occupancy, residents will receive transportation information including: • TCAT maps and schedules • Bicycle route maps • Local trail maps • Walking routes • Carpool resources • Regional transportation websites • Information regarding transportation options within SouthWorks E. Ridesharing The project will support ridesharing by: • Providing designated pick-up/drop-off areas. • Supporting ride-hailing services. • Providing information regarding local rideshare opportunities. • Encouraging resident participation in regional carpool programs. F. Parking Management The project has intentionally limited parking in support of TDM objectives. Parking ratios are below conventional suburban apartment developments and are intended to: • encourage multimodal transportation; • reduce unnecessary vehicle ownership; Page 3 TDM Plan July 20, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com • preserve open space; • minimize impervious surfaces. Parking demand will continue to be monitored following occupancy. G. Pedestrian-Oriented Site Design The development incorporates: • Building entrances facing sidewalks. • Short pedestrian travel distances. • Street trees and landscaping. • Traffic calming. • Human-scale streetscape design. • Safe pedestrian crossings. These design elements encourage walking as the preferred mode for internal trips. H. Future Mobility Opportunities The project has been designed to remain compatible with future SouthWorks mobility initiatives including: • additional transit service, • bicycle share, • micromobility, • future shuttle service, • regional trail connections, • future mixed-use development. Monitoring Following occupancy, the Owner or Property Manager will periodically evaluate: • parking utilization; • bicycle parking usage; • transit information requests; • resident transportation preferences; and • effectiveness of implemented TDM measures. This includes an annual resident transportation survey to monitor travel behavior and identify opportunities for future improvements. If future phases of SouthWorks introduce additional transportation options, residents will be informed and the TDM program updated as appropriate. Page 4 TDM Plan July 20, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com GEIS Consistency This TDM Plan is consistent with the transportation demand management strategies identified in Section 5.7 of the Chain Works District GEIS by implementing measures appropriate for a residential development, including: GEIS Recommendation Woods Implementation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Based on the measures described herein, the proposed Woods development satisfies the Transportation Demand Management objectives of Section 5.7 of the Chain Works District GEIS. The project promotes walking, bicycling, transit use, and ridesharing while supporting the long-term multimodal transportation vision established for the SouthWorks redevelopment. Attached are the project pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan and the SouthWorks Mobility Plan prepared as part of the 2024 redevelopment planning effort. Sincerely, FAGAN ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C. James B. Gensel, P.E., CPESC President PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION BICYCLE CIRCULATION ROAD A FUTURE TRAIL MORSE P L A C E DANBY ROAD BIKE STORAGE DRIVE C DR I V E D RO A D B BUILDING A1 BUILDING B1 BUILDING C1 BUILDING C2 BUILDING C3 BUILDING B2 BUILDING B3 BUILDING A2 August 10, 2026 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Beacon Southworks – The Woods Exterior Finish Palette and Percentages SWBR Project No.25189.00 Dear Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board: Regarding the exterior cladding at buildings C1, C2, and C3 – we have calculated the combined percentages of the overall façade materials of the three buildings and they are listed as such: Trespa Pura: 3% Corrugated Metal Panel: 58% Fiber cement siding & panels: 15% Other (windows / storefront): 24% SWBR and Beacon Communities have discussed the Planning Boards comments from the 8/4/2026 meeting regarding the cladding quantity of the corrugated metal panel. We are committed to providing a design that is both acceptable to the planning board and one that also fits within the context of the overall design for both sites at The Woods (Town) and The Gateway (City). We intend to explore ways to decrease the amount of corrugated metal by replacing select areas of this material with the Trespa Pura which is already part of the cladding material palette for the three C buildings. The goal will be to expand the use of the Trespa Pura in an intentional and appropriate way that fits with the design intent and the clients expectations. However, to do this in a thoughtful manner, SWBR will need to engage the client over the next week to explore options before developing a final resolution that we hope is acceptable to the board. Section 271-17(F)(6) lists primary cladding materials as masonry and EIFS (Exterior Insulted Finish System) both of which we feel do not fit the context of either The Woods or The Gateway sites. As we work to revise the exterior cladding percentages we request that the board not require these materials be added to the palettes of the buildings at The Woods. We look forward to discussing this further at the upcoming board meetings. Sincerely, Brett Gawronski Senior Project Manager August 3, 2026 Jamie B. Gensel, PE, CPESC President Fagan Engineers and Land Surveyors, PC 113 East Chemung Place Elmira, NY 14904 RE: Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant and Left-Turn Lane Assessment The Woods at SouthWorks Town of Ithaca, NY LaBella Project No. 2264303 Dear Mr. Gensel, LaBella Associates (“LaBella”) has prepared this Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant and Left-Turn Lane Assessment Memorandum (“Memo”) for the proposed workforce housing project (“The Woods”) to be located at SouthWorks in Ithaca, NY. LaBella, Fagan Engineers, and Shift Capital attended an agency coordination meeting with representatives from the Town of Ithaca and NYSDOT on July 15, 2026, for the purpose of discussing the June 16, 2026, Trip Generation Memorandum for The Woods project. Discussions centered around the reduction in program for the proposed project at this stage, potential improvements (e.g., sidewalk, turn lanes, traffic signals, cross-connections), and future traffic studies, as agreed upon in the 2019 State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Findings Statement. This Memo is intended to provide the Town of Ithaca, New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and other involved agencies with information regarding the need for potential improvements associated with the proposed 130-unit workforce housing project. This assessment adheres to the methodologies outlined by the NYSDOT, the latest Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and standard transportation engineering practices. 2 20260803_2264303_The Woods_Traffic Assessments_Rev01 Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant The need for a traffic signal is determined by comprehensive investigation of traffic conditions and physical characteristics at the location. LaBella conducted a Preliminary Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis to determine if signalization is warranted at the intersection of NY-96B and the proposed Driveway 4. Chapter 4C of the MUTCD provides guidance for investigating the need for a traffic control signal in the form of nine warrant analyses. Of the nine warrants, three were applicable based on traffic volumes and evaluated using available information. The non-vehicular warrants were not evaluated as part of this feasibility study. • Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume — This warrant is satisfied if for any eight hours of an average day the traffic volumes for Condition A or Condition B specified in Table 4C-1 in the MUTCD are met for the main arterial and the higher volume side road approach to the intersection. • Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume — This warrant is met when for any four hours of any average day, points plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-1 (or Figure 4C- 2) of the MUTCD fall above the appropriate curve. • Warrant 3, Peak Hour — This warrant is met when for any one hour of an average day, points plotted on the graph presented on Figure 4C-3 (or Figure 4C-4) of the MUTCD fall above the appropriate curve. The posted speed limit is 40 mph at the site location; however, to be more conservative, a design speed of 45 mph was used. Therefore, the 70% thresholds from Warrants 1, 2, and 3 were used. The major street approach volumes (NY-96B) were developed based on the most recent available counts obtained from the NYSDOT Traffic Data Viewer. The minor street approach volumes were developed using the latest ITE Trip Generation Handbook Vehicle Time of Day Distribution factors for Land Use Code 223 (Affordable Housing). Table 1 summarizes the analysis for Warrants 1, 2, and 3 based on the Build condition traffic volumes and proposed intersection geometry. A “Yes” under the “Signal Warrants Met?” column indicates that the criteria are satisfied for that hour. 3 20260803_2264303_The Woods_Traffic Assessments_Rev01 Table 1 – Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Time Begin Build Volumes Signal Warrants Met? NY-96B Driveway 4 1 – Eight-Hour Volume 2 – Four-Hour Volume 3 – Peak Hour Volume Condition A Condition B 12:00 AM 69 0 N N N N 1:00 AM 37 0 N N N N 2:00 AM 28 0 N N N N 3:00 AM 24 0 N N N N 4:00 AM 50 0 N N N N 5:00 AM 129 10 N N N N 6:00 AM 297 28 N N N N 7:00 AM 749 39 N N N N 8:00 AM 1104 18 N N N N 9:00 AM 745 16 N N N N 10:00 AM 613 12 N N N N 11:00 AM 599 15 N N N N 12:00 PM 716 14 N N N N 1:00 PM 674 17 N N N N 2:00 PM 821 19 N N N N 3:00 PM 950 19 N N N N 4:00 PM 954 20 N N N N 5:00 PM 979 19 N N N N 6:00 PM 707 24 N N N N 7:00 PM 511 14 N N N N 8:00 PM 402 12 N N N N 9:00 PM 325 8 N N N N 10:00 PM 220 4 N N N N 11:00 PM 155 2 N N N N Required volumes Two-Lane Major Street 420 630 See Figure 4C-2 See Figure 4C-4 Two-Lane Minor Street 140 70 Overall Warrant Met? NO NO NO NO 4 20260803_2264303_The Woods_Traffic Assessments_Rev01 5 20260803_2264303_The Woods_Traffic Assessments_Rev01 Left-Turn Lane Assessment LaBella evaluated the need for a left-turn lane using applicable guidance from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“Green Book”), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the NYSDOT. The need for a left-turn lane was assessed based on advancing and opposing traffic volumes, turning movements, intersection geometry, and operating speeds. The assessment evaluated weekday AM and PM peak-hour conditions at the intersection of NY Route 96B and Driveway 4 under Build conditions. AM Peak Hour Factors • Advancing Volume: 524 • Opposing Volume: 522 • Left-Turn Volume: 3 (0.57%) PM Peak Hour Factors • Advancing Volume: 581 • Opposing Volume: 488 • Left-Turn Volume: 11 (1.89%) Based on the assessment results, a northbound left-turn lane is not warranted under the analyzed Build conditions. The following charts summarize the results. Left-Turn Warrants – AM Peak Hour 6 20260803_2264303_The Woods_Traffic Assessments_Rev01 Left-Turn Warrants – PM Peak Hour Conclusion Based on the projected Build-condition traffic volumes, none of the applicable MUTCD vehicular signal warrants evaluated are satisfied at the intersection of NY-96B and proposed Driveway 4. The left-turn lane assessment also indicates that a northbound left-turn lane is not warranted during either the weekday AM or PM peak hour. Accordingly, the proposed driveway can operate without installation of a traffic signal or northbound left-turn lane under the analyzed Build conditions. Please contact me at dkruse@labellapc.com or (585) 402-7029 if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, LaBella Associates David Kruse, AICP, PTP, RSP1 Principal Transportation Planner BR BUILDING A1 BUILDING A2 BUILDING B1 BUILDING B2 BUILDING B3 BUILDING C1 BUILDING C2 BUILDING C3 PLAYGROUND DANBY ROAD MORS E P L A C E RIDE SHARE • • • EIGHT BIKE RACKS THAT FIT SEVEN BIKES EACH = 56 BIKES ONE CONTROLLED ACCESS BIKE CAGE WITH SEVEN E-BIKE CHARGING SPOTS AND SEVEN REGULAR PARKING SPOTS = 14 BIKES TOTAL = 70 BIKES CAN BE PARKED OUTSIDE ON SITE BIKE PARKING NOTE: SITE PLAN - THE WOODS NSCALE: 1" = 30' 0 30'60'120' Site Plan Drawings For Beacon CommunitiesThe Woods At SouthWorks Town of Ithaca, Tompkins (Co), New York C200 EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT LOCATION August 14, 2024 LOCATION MAP Beacon Communities 505 Ellicott Street, Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 (716) 704-3699 PREPARED FOR: NO.TITLE INDEX OF DRAWINGS C100 C300 SITE PLAN C400 C500 GRADING PLAN UTILITY PLANGENERAL NOTES SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG TITLE SHEET JBG RSN C000 BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon SouthWorks The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com C301 SITE PLAN C302 SITE PLAN C303 SITE PLAN C304 SITE PLAN C305 SITE PLAN C401 GRADING PLAN C402 GRADING PLAN C403 GRADING PLAN C404 GRADING PLAN C405 GRADING PLAN NO.TITLE C600 E & S PLAN C601 E & S DETAILS C700 CIVIL DETAILS ROADWAY PROFILES C701 C900 SEWER PROFILES C901 CIVIL DETAILS C702 STORM CHAMBER DETAILSC800 C801 STORM CHAMBER DETAILS CIVIL DETAILS C501 UTILITY PLAN C502 UTILITY PLAN C503 UTILITY PLAN C504 UTILITY PLAN C505 UTILITY PLAN Last Revised: August 10, 2026 C406 SEGMENTAL WALL DETAILS C407 WALL LOCATIONS C802 STORM CHAMBER DETAILS Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) LEGEND SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com GENERAL NOTES C100 I.GENERAL 1.BASE MAPPING PREPARED BY FAGAN ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, PC. 2. THE PROJECT SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN FEMA DELINEATED FLOODWAYS OR FLOODPLAINS. 3. THE PROJECT SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN FEDERALLY REGULATED WETLANDS ON-SITE, NOR ANY NWI MAPPED WETLANDS. 4. MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE PROVIDED BY CITY OF ITHACA. 5. PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE PROVIDED BY CITY OF ITHACA. 6. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GROUND-INTRUSIVE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND REVIEW THE CURRENT NYSDEC-APPROVED INTERIM SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN (OCTOBER 2022) AND ALL SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS. COMPLIANCE WITH THE ISMP IS MANDATORY AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE WORK UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. THE CONTRACTOR'S SURVEYOR SHALL CHECK ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL PROMPTLY BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP HIS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. 9. ALL DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY OR UTILITIES (UNDER OR ABOVE GROUND) SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNER OF RECORD AT ONCE. 10. CONSTRUCTION ALONG CITY, TOWN, AND STATE ROADS SHALL CONFORM TO SPECIFICATIONS LISTED ON PERMITS ISSUED BY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES. 11. SAFE AND CONTINUOUS THROUGH TRAFFIC, INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR ADJACENT OWNER DRIVEWAYS, SERVICE ROADS, PUBLIC STREETS, AND SIDEWALKS SHALL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND NEW YORK STATE D.O.T. AN ACCEPTABLE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION IN/ALONG/NEAR TOWN AND STATE ROADWAYS. 12.HIGHWAY DRAINAGE, SIDE STREET DRAINAGE, SWALES, DITCHES, AND OTHER EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL BE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINED IN ADEQUATE WORKING CONDITION DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ANY OF SUCH FACILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. 13. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS NOT TO DISTURB AND/OR DAMAGE PROPERTY CORNERS (IRON PINS, HUBS, ECT.). ANY DISTURBED OR DAMAGED PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 15. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SUCH AS ELECTRIC, GAS MAINS, AND TELEPHONE SHALL BE STAKED OUT BY THE UTILITY COMPANY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL NEW YORK STATE DIG SAFELY (1-800-962-7962) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES FOR STAKEOUT. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES. IF UTILITIES ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR THESE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 17.EXISTING WATERMAIN LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. EXISTING INDIVIDUAL WATER SERVICES ARE NOT SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. 18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER OF ALL IMPACTED MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS, THE RESIDENT ENGINEER AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ON AND INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE OF ANY WATERMAINS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL WATER SERVICE LINES AND PRIVATE WELLS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE AMPLE SUPPLY OF REPAIR CLAMPS, COUPLINGS, AND PIPING FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS. 19.IN AREAS WHERE THE CONTRACTOR IS EXCAVATING NEAR ANY UTILITY POLES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRACE AND/OR HOLD IN PLACE UNTIL EXCAVATED AREA IS BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED. 20. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER DISPOSAL OF ALL REMOVED VEGETATION, SOIL AND OTHER DISTURBED DEBRIS. 21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM MIGRATING OFF SITE, TO STORM SEWERS, OR ADJACENT ROADWAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED SWPPP. 22. ALL EXCAVATIONS SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE WORK FORCE AS PER THE CURRENT O.S.H.A. REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS ANY STATE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. 23. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBSERVE O.S.H.A. AND OTHER APPLICABLE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY AT ALL TIMES. 24. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW SOIL BORING AND TESTING REPORTS TO DETERMINE SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SUITABILITY OF ON-SITE SOILS FOR FILL MATERIAL AND FOR INFORMATION ON GROUNDWATER DEPTHS. 25. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED ON SHEET C4.7 AND THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLANS. 26. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FEATURES PRIOR TO BULK EARTHMOVING ACTIVITIES. 27. ALL LIGHT POLES, LIGHT FIXTURES AND ASSOCIATED CONDUIT SHALL BE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED UNDER A SEPARATE CONTRACT. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS WORK AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR INSTALLATION OF THE TRENCHING. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING AND INSTALLING THE POLE BASES FOR ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES. II.SANITARY SEWERS 1. SANITARY SEWERS, MANHOLES, CLEANOUTS, AND OTHER APPURTENANCES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL MUNICIPAL SPECIFICATIONS. 2. SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE SDR-35 PVC PIPE CONFORMING TO ASTM D-3034, WITH RUBBER GASKETED JOINTS CONFORMING TO ASTM D-3212 AND ASTM F-477. 3. TESTED SANITARY SEWERS SHALL HAVE AN INFILTRATION RATE OF LESS THAN 100 GALLONS PER MILE PER INCH DIAMETER OF PIPE PER DAY. 4. SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE LAID WITH A STRAIGHT ALIGNMENT BETWEEN MANHOLES. AS PER THE RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES, 2014 EDITION, SECTION 33.85 DEFLECTION TEST. THE TEST SHALL BE CONDUCTED AFTER THE FINAL BACKFILL HAS BEEN IN PLACE 30 DAYS. A RIGID BALL OR MANDREL USED FOR THE DEFLECTION TEST SHALL HAVE A DIAMETER NOT LESS THAN 95% OF THE BASE INSIDE DIAMETER OR AVERAGE INSIDE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE DEPENDING ON WHICH IS SPECIFIED IN THE ASTM SPECIFICATION, INCLUDING THE APPENDIX, TO WHICH THE PIPE IS MANUFACTURED. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONCRETE ENCASE THE SANITARY SEWER LINE OR FORCEMAIN AT ALL POINTS WHERE VERTICAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 18' AT CROSSINGS WITH STORM SEWER LINES. 6. ANY POLYETHYLENE FORCEMAIN SHALL BE TYPE DR-11 WITH A PRESSURE RATING OF 128 PSI. III.STORM SEWERS 1. STORM SEWERS, MANHOLES, INLETS, DITCHES, AND OTHER SYSTEM COMPONENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL SPECIFICATIONS. 2. STORM SEWERS SHALL BE ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEM'S ADS N-12 CORRUGATED, SMOOTH INTERIOR, HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) PIPE. ADS N-12 STORM SEWER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS AND ASTM D 2321. 3. ALL FLARED-END SECTIONS SHALL BE GALVANIZED METAL END SECTIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 4. RIPRAP PADS AT STORM SEWER DISCHARGES SHALL CONSIST OF NYSDOT LIGHT STONE FILLING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS. 5. CROWN OF MULTIPLE PROPOSED STORM SEWER PIPES IS AT OR NEAR THE TOP OF THE SUBGRADE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT INTEGRITY OF ALL INSTALLED STORM SEWERS UNTIL SUFFICIENT COVER IS PLACED ON SAID PIPING. IV.ACCESS ROADS AND PARKING AREA 1. LIMING, FERTILIZING, SEEDING, AND MULCHING OF DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED SWPPP. 2. SIGNAGE, PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE TO THE NYSDOT'S MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. 3. ROADWAY EMBANKMENT: OBTAIN SUBGRADE ELEVATION BY COMPACTING ON-SITE SOILS IN MAXIMUM 8 INCH HORIZONTAL LIFTS. USE ON-SITE SOILS AS EMBANKMENT FILL THAT DO NOT CONTAIN ORGANIC OR DELETERIOUS MATERIALS, ARE NOT EXCESSIVELY WET OR FROZEN, OR THAT HAS COBBLES IN EXCESS OF 6 INCHES ALONG THE LONGEST DIMENSION. IF SUITABLE ON-SITE SOILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, A WELL GRADED BANK-RUN APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER SHALL BE IMPORTED. THE BANK-RUN GRAVEL SHALL BE SOUND, DURABLE, FREE OF ORGANIC OR OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL, WITH NO MORE THAN 10 PERCENT BY WEIGHT FINER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE. ADJUST THE MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE EMBANKMENT FILL (WHETHER ON-SITE OR OTHERWISE) TO WITHIN 2% OF OPTIMUM BY EITHER AIR DRYING OR THROUGH THE ADDITION OF WATER PRIOR TO COMPACTION. SPREAD WET FILL IN AN 8 INCH LOOSE LIFT AND DISC TO EXPEDITE AIR DRYING. 4. ROADWAY EXCAVATION: EXCAVATE SUBSOIL TO THE DEPTH REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM SURFACE OF SOLID UNDISTURBED GROUND FOR THE PLACEMENT OF AGGREGATE SUBBASE COURSE. 5. FILL, SUBGRADE, AND SUBBASE SHALL BE COMPACTED TO OR ABOVE 95 PERCENT 'MODIFIED PROCTOR' DENSITY WITH A SMOOTH DRUM ROLLER, OR OTHER SUFFICIENT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT, WEIGHING AT LEAST 7 TONS. OPERATE COMPACTOR IN THE STATIC MODE FOR COMPACTION OF SILTY SOILS AND IN THE VIBRATORY MODE FOR ALL OTHER MATERIALS. 6. SUBBASE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN MAXIMUM 6 INCH AND MINIMUM 3 INCH HORIZONTAL LIFTS. MAINTAIN OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT FOR COMPACTION. 7. WHEREVER GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED, INSTALL UNDERDRAINS BELOW THE SUBBASE. LAP UNDERDRAIN FABRIC WITH SUBBASE FABRIC. 8. BELOW THE SUBBASE, PROVIDE A SOIL STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, SUBJECT TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE HIGHWAY SUPERINTENDENT, WITH THE FOLLOWING CERTIFIABLE PROPERTY VALUES: MINIMUM PUNCTURE STRENGTH OF 125 LBS., MINIMUM MULLEN BURST STRENGTH OF 430 PSI, MINIMUM GRAB TENSILE STRENGTH OF 220 LBS., AND MAXIMUM APPARENT OPENING SIZE OF 40-80 SIEVE. V.PUBLIC WATER 1. WATERMAINS, WATER SERVICES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND OTHER APPURTENANCES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, TESTED, AND DISINFECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OWNER'S SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATERMAIN EXTENSIONS. WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCE MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION SHALL COMPLY WITH NYSDOH STANDARDS AND AWWA STANDARD C600-93. 2. DUCTILE IRON PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52, AND SHALL CONFORM IN ALL ASPECTS TO AWWA C-151. FITTING SHALL CONFORM IN ALL ASPECTS TO AWWA C-11- OR TO COMPACT FITTINGS AWWA C-153. ALL SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH CEMENT MORTAR LINING IN CONFORMANCE WITH AWWA C-104. PIPES SHALL HAVE GASKETED, PUSH-ON, JOINTS CONFORMING TO AWWA C-111 3. THE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN WATER AND ANY TYPE OF SEWER UTILITIES (SANITARY OR STORM) SHALL BE 10 FEET, MEASURED FROM OUTSIDE WALL TO OUTSIDE WALL OF THE MAINS. THE MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION DISTANCE AT THE POINT OF CROSSING SHALL BE 18 INCHES, ALSO MEASURED FROM OUTSIDE WALL TO OUTSIDE WALL. 4. WATERMAIN SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A CONTINUOUS UPWARD GRADE TO A POINT OF AIR RELEASE. POINTS OF AIR RELEASE INCLUDE WATER INCLUDE WATER SERVICES, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND BLOW-OFF VALVES. 5. SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISINFECTION OF WATERMAINS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH AWWA STANDARD C651-92, SECTION 5.2 CONTINUOUS FEED METHOD, DISINFECTING WATERMAINS. AFTER FINAL FLUSHING AND BEFORE THE NEW WATERMAIN IS IN OPERATION, TWO CONSECUTIVE SAMPLES TAKEN 24 HOURS APART, SHALL BE COLLECTED FROM THE NEW WATERMAIN. AT LEAST ONE SET OF SAMPLES SHALL BE COLLECTED FROM EVERY 1200 LINEAR FEET OF WATERMAIN, PLUS ONE SET FROM THE END OF LINES AND EACH BRANCH. 6. FITTINGS SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS. 7. HYDRANTS SHALL CONFORM TO WATER SYSTEMS SPECIFICATIONS WITH A 5' BURY, OPEN LEFT, TRAFFIC TYPE GROUND FLANGE, 6” INLET, (1) 4-1/2” NST STEAMER NOZZLE, (2) 2-1/2” NST HOSE NOZZLES MECHANICAL JOINT CONNECTION, 5” HYDRANT VALVE SEAT, AND A PENTAGON OPERATING NUT. THE HYDRANTS SHALL CONFORM TO AWWA C-502. 8. MAIN VALVES SHALL BE MECHANICAL JOINTS, RESILIENT SEAT, GATE, 2” OPERATING NUT, OPEN LEFT, WITH STAINLESS STEEL BONNET AND PACKING BOLTS AND NUTS. THE VALVES SHALL CONFORM TO AWWA C-509. 9. MAIN VALVE BOXES SHALL BE 5-1/4”, SCREW TYPE, WITH CAST IRON LIDS MARKED “WATER.” 10. ALL NEW AND ALTERED EXISTING WATERMAINS SHALL BE PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST REVISION OF AWWA STANDARD C-600-93 (LATEST REVISION). 11. THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES BETWEEN GAS LINES AND WATER LINES ARE RECOMMENDED. OTHER MORE STRINGENT SEPARATION DISTANCES MAY APPLY. HORIZONTAL- 5 FEET VERTICAL- 2 FEET VI.ENVIRONMENTAL SITE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FORMER EMERSON POWER TRANSMISSION FACILITY (NYSDEC SITE NO. 755010) AND IS SUBJECT TO THE NYSDEC-APPROVED INTERIM SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN (ISMP), DATED OCTOBER 2022, INCLUDING ALL ASSOCIATED INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS (ICS), ENGINEERING CONTROLS (ECS), EXCAVATION WORK PLAN (APPENDIX F), HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (APPENDIX G), ENVIRONMENTAL EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS, AND SUBSEQUENT NYSDEC-APPROVED AMENDMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ISMP DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY EXCAVATION, GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATION, DRILLING, DEWATERING, DEMOLITION, SOIL DISTURBANCE, OR OTHER GROUND-INTRUSIVE ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED ISMP AND EXCAVATION WORK PLAN. MANAGEMENT, HANDLING, STOCKPILING, CHARACTERIZATION, TRANSPORTATION, DISPOSAL, AND/OR REUSE OF SOIL, FILL, GROUNDWATER, AND OTHER SITE MATERIALS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ISMP AND APPLICABLE NYSDEC REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL INTRUSIVE ACTIVITIES WITH THE OWNER'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL AND SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE OWNER AND ENGINEER IF CONTAMINATED SOIL, GROUNDWATER, PETROLEUM IMPACTS, BURIED STRUCTURES, UNKNOWN UTILITIES, DRUMS, TANKS, STAINED SOILS, ODORS, OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED. WORK IN THE AFFECTED AREA SHALL CEASE UNTIL APPROPRIATE DIRECTION IS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER'S ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL AND, IF REQUIRED, NYSDEC. 1. THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 690 SOUTH AURORA STREET, ITHACA NY IS A NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (NYSDEC) INACTIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE (#755010). RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION REMAINS ON-SITE. AN INTERIM SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN (ISMP) IS IN PLACE AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SMP. 2. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TO REIVEW THE SMP AND PLANNED EXACAVATION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. 3. ALL INTRUSIVE EARTHWORK (I.E., EXCAVATION, GRADING), DISTRUBANCE TO SOIL, AND LOAD-OUT OF ALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL WILL BE OVERSEEN BY A QUALIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL (QEP) OR PERSON UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION / THAT WILL BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE QEP AT LEAST 48-HRS IN ADVANCE OF ANY SOIL DISTURBANCES SO THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR CAN BE MOBILIZED TO THE SITE TO IMPLEMNET THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING. 5. THE QEP/ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR, RETAINED BY THE OWNER, SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING: a. COMMUNITY AIR MONITORING TO BE COMPLETED DURING ALL SOIL DISTURBANCES. b. SCREENING OF ALL SOILS THAT ARE DISTURBED USING VISUAL, OLFACTORY, AND INSTRUMENTS BY A QUALIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL OR PERSON UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. c. SOIL/FILL REUSE TESTING AS NEEDED. d. ALL CORRESPONDENCE AND DISCUSSIONS WITH NYSDEC OR OTHERS IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PRIOR TO MOBILIZING TO THE SITE, PROVIDE A HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (HASP) TO THE ENGINEER FOR THEIR RECORDS. THE HASP SHALL INCLUDE PROPER PROCEDURE AND PROTOCOLS FOR THE WORK BASED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN THE SMP AND OTHER PRIOR REPORTS. 7. ALL EXCAVATED SOILS / FILL WILL BE SEGREGATED BY THE CONTRACTOR, BASED ON DIRECTION FROM THE QEP/ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR, AND THE SEGREGATED MATERIALS WILL EITHER BE STOCKPILED FOR OFF-SITE DISPOSAL, ON-SITE REUSE, OR OFF-SITE RE-USE. SOIL/FILL PROPOSED FOR ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE REUSE MAY REQUIRE ANALYTICAL TESTING AS DETERMINED BY NYSDEC. ANY ANALYTICAL TESTING FOR REUSE SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY THE QEP/ENVIRONMETNAL MONITOR AND THE TESTING RESULTS WILL DETERMINE IF THE MATERIAL IS ACCEPTABLE FOR REUSE. THE TIME FOR TESTING AND CONFIRMING REUSE MAY VARY AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN STOCKPILES UNTIL THE TESTING RESULTS ARE AVAILABLE AND A DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE QEP TO CONFIRM REUSE OF SOIL/FILL. 8. ALL SOIL/FILL PROPOSED FOR OFF-SITE DISPOSAL (OR SOIL/FILL INITIALLY PROPOSED FOR REUSE BUT THROUGH TESTING DETERMINED TO REQUIRE OFF-SITE DISPOSAL) SHALL BE CHARACTERIZED FOR WASTE DISPOSAL BY THE CONTRACTOR. 9. ALL OFF-SITE DISPOSAL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE (INCLUDING 6NYCRR PART 360), AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ONLY UTILIZE DISPOSAL FACILITIES THAT ARE PERMITTED FOR DISPOSAL OF THE WASTE AND CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LIST OF PROPOSED FACILITIES PRIOR TO ANY SOIL OR FILL MATERIAL BEING SENT OFF-SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE QEP/ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR ALL WASTE DISPOSAL DOCUMENTATION WITHIN 48-HRS OF RECEIPT. WASTE DISPOSAL DOCUMENTATION SHALL INCLUDE APPROVED WASTE PROFILE(S), FULLY EXECUTED WASTE MANIFESTS AND WASTE DISPOSAL WEIGH TICKETS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR ANY WASTE DISPOSAL UNTIL ALL DISPOSAL DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED TO THE QEP/ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR. 10. ALL EXCAVATED SOIL/FILL STOCKPILED WILL BE PLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR ON MINUMUM 6-MIL POLYETHYLENE (POLY) SHEETING WITH PERIMETER BERMS AND COVERED WITH WEIGHTED DOWN POLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. 11. ALL SOIL/FILL GENERATED FROM THE SITE SHALL NOT LEAVE THE SITE BOUNDARY WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE QEP/ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR. 12. ANY WATER (GROUNDWATER OR PRECIPITATION) ENCOUNTERED IN THE EXCAVATION AREAS SHALL BE CONTAINERIZED AND SAMPLED FOR WASTE CHARACTERIZATION BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO OFF-SITE DISPOSAL. 13. ANY FREE PRODUCT (OIL/PETROLEUM OR OTHER CHEMICALS) SHALL BE CONTAINERIZED AND SAMPLED FOR WASTE CHARACTERIZATION BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO OFF-SITE DISPOSAL. 14. ALL WATER AND FREE PRODUCT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROCURE ANY REQURIED PERMITS FOR DISPOSAL OF LIQUIDS (E.G., TEMPORARY SEWER USE PERMIT FROM LOCAL PUBLIC OWNED TREATMENT WORKS). 15. DUST AND ODOR SHALL BE MANAGED BY THE CONTRACTOR PER SMP AND AS REQUESTED BY THE QEP/ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR (E.G., WETTING EXCAVATION SURFACES, MODIFYING WORK PROCEDURES, UTILIZING ODOR SUPRESSANTS, ETC.). 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE THE SITE FROM ACCESS BY THE PUBLIC AND SECURE AREAS OF EXCAVATION WITH CONSTRUCTION FENCING, AS NEEDED, BASED ON FIELD FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS AND AS REQUESTED BY THE QEP/ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR. P A R K I N G L O T # 6 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width DENSE VEGETATION M O R S E P L A C E ROAD A RO A D B DRIVE C DR I V E D Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) LEGEND SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 00 30'60' FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com EXISTING CONDITIONS C200 STREAM SETBACK ZONE 2 LIMITS OF APPALACHIAN OAK - HICKORY FOREST STREAM SETBACK ZONE 1 LEGEND P A R K I N G L O T # 6 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width 18 16 23 21 5 28 PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 EV FEVEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEVFEV FEV EV EV EV FEV FEV FEV FEV EV FEV FEV FEV FEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEV FEV FEV DANBY ROAD DRIVE V D D D D D NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PAR K I N G - F I R E L A N E 00 30'60' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com OVERALL SITE PLAN C300 N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width 18 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 9 UNIT APARTMENT FFE BASEMENT: 775. 5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 EV DRIVE IV NO PARKING - FIRE LANE SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SITE PLAN C301 00 15'30' N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width 18 16 23 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776. 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775. 5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 EV FEVEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV DANBY ROAD NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SITE PLAN C3020015'30' 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 776. 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 FEVFEV DRIVE V D D SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SITE PLAN C303 00 15'30' 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 16 23 21 28 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 LOADING AREA EV EV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV NO PARKING - FIRE LANE NO PARKING - FIRE LANE SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SITE PLAN C304 00 15'30' 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 16 23 21 5 28 PROJECT BOUNDARY PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA FEVFEV FEV EV EV EV FEV FEV FEV FEV EV FEV FEV FEV FEVFEVFEVFEVFEVFEV FEV FEV D D D D NO PAR K I N G - F I R E L A N E SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SITE PLAN C305 00 15'30' 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width M O R S E P L A C E ROAD A RO A D B DRIVE C DR I V E D PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y D D D PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 DANBY ROAD DRIVE V Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) 00 30'60' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com OVERALL GRADING PLAN C306 STREAM SETBACK ZONE 2 LIMITS OF APPALACHIAN OAK - HICKORY FOREST STREAM SETBACK ZONE 1 LEGEND N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 9 UNIT APARTMENT FFE BASEMENT: 775. 5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 DRIVE IV Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) 00 15'30' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com GRADING PLAN C401STREAM SETBACK ZONE 2 LIMITS OF APPALACHIAN OAK - HICKORY FOREST STREAM SETBACK ZONE 1 LEGEND N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776. 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775. 5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 DANBY ROAD Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com GRADING PLAN C402 00 15'30' 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W RO A D B DR I V E D PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 FFE BASEMENT: 776. 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED DRIVE V Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com GRADING PLAN C403 00 15'30' 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W MORSE P L A C E ROAD A DRIVE C PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 LOADING AREA Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) 00 15'30' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com GRADING PLAN C404STREAM SETBACK ZONE 2 LIMITS OF APPALACHIAN OAK - HICKORY FOREST STREAM SETBACK ZONE 1 LEGEND 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W PROJECT BOUNDARY PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) 00 15'30' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com GRADING PLAN C405STREAM SETBACK ZONE 2 LIMITS OF APPALACHIAN OAK - HICKORY FOREST STREAM SETBACK ZONE 1 LEGEND SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SEGMENTAL WALL DETAILS C406 < 4' TALL RETAINING WALLS · · · · · · · > 4' TALL RETAINING WALLS GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT TABLE WALL ABUTMENT DETAIL PAVEMENT AT BASE OF WALL STEPPING BASE DETAIL PINNING DETAIL DRAIN DETAIL CAPPING DETAIL - PROFILE CURVE CAPPING DETAIL - PLAN GEOSYNTHETIC AT STRUCTURES BEHIND WALL NOTE:ALL RETAINING WALL SHOP DRAWINGS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS, AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING THOSE FOR THE BASIS-OF-DESIGN SYSTEM (VERSA-LOK), SHALL BE PREPARED AND SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 DANBY ROAD DRIVE V 00 30'60' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com WALL LOCATIONS C407 CONCRETE RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS SA N SA N 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width W W W W W W W W W PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y ST ST ST ST SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG / E UG / E ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG / E UG / E PROPOSED STORM W A T E R TREATMENT CHAMBE R S (UPPER) PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) D D PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA ST ST ST PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 ST ST ST ST ST ST UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) W W W W W W SAN SAN SAN DANBY ROAD DRIVE V SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG/E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/ E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN STST W W W W W W ST ST ST ST ST STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT STRUCTURE TABLE STRUCTURE NAME:RIM ELEV.PIPES IN:PIPES OUT LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) 00 30'60' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com FE Project Number 2011.104-008 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN C500 SA N SA N SA N SA N MORSE P L A C E ROAD A W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y ST ST ST ST SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG / E UG / E PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 9 UNIT APARTMENT FFE BASEMENT: 775. 5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 ST ST ST ST UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E DRIVE IV W W W LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com UTILITY PLAN C501 00 15'30' ROAD A W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W DR I V E D PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG / E UG / E PROPOSED STORM W A T E R TREATMENT CHAMB E R S (UPPER) PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776. 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775. 5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG / E DANBY ROAD ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com UTILITY PLAN C502 00 15'30' 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W RO A D B DR I V E D PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y UG / E PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 776. 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 UG / E UG / E W W W W W SAN SAN SAN DRIVE V ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG/E UG/E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/ E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com UTILITY PLAN C503 00 15'30' SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W MORSE P L A C E ROAD A DRIVE C W W W W W W W W PROJECT B O U N D A R Y ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N SA N SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 LOADING AREA ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com UTILITY PLAN C504 00 15'30' 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W PROJECT BOUNDARY PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/ E UG/E ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG/ E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E UG / E PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA ST ST ST ST ST ST UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E PROPOSED STORM WATER TREATMENT CHAMBERS (LOWER) ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SA N SA N SA N SA N ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST UG / E UG/ E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E UG/E SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN ST ST ST ST LEGEND Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 12 / 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 6 P M Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 2 5 1 8 9 . 0 0 B e a c o n T h e W o o d s / 2 5 1 8 9 _ B e a c o n T h e W o o d s _ A r c h R 2 5 _ C e n t r a l . r v t 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com UTILITY PLAN C505 00 15'30' -0+50 0+00 74 8 . 1 9 1+00 75 1 . 6 1 74 9 . 0 6 2 2+00 75 1 . 8 3 75 0 . 1 4 8 3+00 75 1 . 7 2 75 0 . 6 5 9 4+00 75 1 . 2 0 75 1 . 1 5 9 5+00 75 2 . 2 7 75 1 . 6 5 9 6+00 75 1 . 1 1 75 2 . 1 5 9 7+00 75 2 . 3 1 75 2 . 8 8 0 8+00 75 2 . 3 3 75 8 . 4 3 6 9+00 9+25 -0+50 0+00 72 4 . 6 6 72 4 . 6 5 7 1+00 72 6 . 9 2 72 6 . 9 2 4 2+00 72 7 . 7 2 72 7 . 7 1 5 3+00 72 7 . 6 0 72 7 . 6 0 0 4+00 73 2 . 1 9 73 2 . 1 9 4 5+00 74 1 . 9 5 74 1 . 9 5 1 6+00 75 3 . 1 9 75 3 . 1 9 1 6+50 SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY ROAD A PROFILE ROAD B PROFILE DRIVE C PROFILE DRIVE D PROFILE 00 30'60' 00 10'20' FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com ROADWAY PROFILES C600 SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY CB-3 THRU CB-14 00 30'60'00 10'20' DMH-5 THRU CB-11 CB-3 THRU CB-8 ES-1 THRU CB-2 EXIST. SMH THRU SMH-9 SMH-4 THRU SMH-6 FE Project Number 2011.104-008 SMH-19 RELOCATION 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SEWER PROFILES C601 CB-11 THRU CB-22 ES-7 THRU CB-24 CONDITION SCHEMATIC REQUIREMENTS WATERMAIN / SEWER CROSSING DETAIL Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY R7-8 PARKING AREA LIGHTING DETAIL TYPICAL STOP SIGNTYPICAL HC PARKING SIGN TYPICAL SIGN INSTALLATION HEAVY DUTY REGULAR DUTY N.Y. PARKING AREA PAVEMENT SECTIONS CONCRETE SIDEWALK NOTES CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION 6" CONCRETE CURB TYPICAL ELEVATION AT THRUST BLOCKTHRUST BLOCK AT TEE PLAN VIEW THRUST BLOCKS AT BEND PLAN VIEW NOTES: NOTES: NOTES : WATER MAIN WET TAP SLEEVE AND VALVE DETAIL TYPICAL THRUST BLOCK DETAILS TYPICAL PIPE TRENCH DETAIL FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY DETAIL GATE VALVE DETAIL FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com CIVIL DETAILS C700 Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY EXTERIOR DROP INLET MANHOLE NOTES FLAT SLAB TOP ECCENTRIC CONE TOP MANHOLE DETAILS SANITARYSEWER ROUND FLANGE CAST IRON MANHOLE FRAME AND COVER CROSS SECTION PLAN VIEW CLEANOUT COVER DETAIL IN-LINE CLEANOUT DETAIL SEWER CLEANOUT DETAIL 4' DIA. CATCH BASIN DETAIL 2'x2' CATCH BASIN DETAIL FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com CIVIL DETAILS C701 TRENCH PLUG INSTALLATION DETAIL Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY FE Project Number 2011.104-008 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com STORM CHAMBER DETAILS C800 SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com STORM CHAMBER DETAILS C801 Note : Utility information has been plotted from available sources and their locations and size should be considered approximate only. The contractor is responsible for determining exact utility locations, sizes, and elevations prior to commencing construction. If uncharted or misplotted utilities are encountered, the contractor is required to notify the owner immediately. New York State law requires excavators to contact the one-call notification system prior to digging to prevent damage to buried facilities. IT'S THE LAW! Call three days before you dig!1-800-962-7962 Dig Safely New York (non-members must be contacted separately) SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com STORM CHAMBER DETAILS C802 STORMTECH OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL AQUA BOX OUTLET STRUCTURE DETAIL 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W 2 0 ' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W N. Y. S. R O U T E 9 6 B - D A N B Y R O A D variable width M O R S E P L A C E ROAD A RO A D B DRIVE C DR I V E D PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y PR O J E C T B O U N D A R Y D PROPOSED 12 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B3 FFE BASEMENT: 753.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 765.11 PROPOSED 6 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B1 FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 PROPOSED 9 UNIT TOWNHOUSE BUILDING B2 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 PROPOSED 26 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C2 FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 PROPOSED 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A2 FFE BASEMENT: 776.0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 6 . 3 3 MAINT.SHED LOADING AREA PROPOSED 9 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING A1 FFE BASEMENT: 775.5 0 F F E : 1 S T F L O O R : 7 8 5 . 8 3 DANBY ROAD DRIVE V SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSFSF LEGEND E&S PLAN NOTES: 1. ONLY LIMITED DISTURBANCE WILL BE PERMITTED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SITE FOR GRADING AND ACQUIRING BORROW TO CONSTRUCT THOSE BMPS. 2. EROSION AND SEDIMENT BMPS MUST BE CONSTRUCTED, STABILIZED, AND FUNCTIONAL BEFORE SITE DISTURBANCE BEGINS WITHIN THE TRIBUTARY AREAS OF THOSE BMPS. 3. AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED, TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT BMPS MUST BE REMOVED. AREAS DISTURBED DURING REMOVAL OF THE BMPS MUST BE STABILIZED IMMEDIATELY. 4. STOCKPILE HEIGHTS MUST NOT EXCEED 35 FEET. STOCKPILE SLOPES MUST BE 2:1 OR FLATTER. 5. UNTIL THE SITE IS STABILIZED, ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT BMPS MUST BE MAINTAINED PROPERLY. MAINTENANCE MUST INCLUDE INSPECTIONS OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT BMPS AFTER EACH RUNOFF EVENT AND ON A WEEKLY BASIS. ALL PREVENTATIVE AND REMEDIAL MAINTENANCE WORK, INCLUDING CLEAN OUT, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, REGRADING, RESEEDING, REMULCHING AND RENETTING MUST BE PERFORMED IMMEDIATELY. IF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS FAIL TO PERFORM AS EXPECTED, REPLACEMENT BMPS, OR MODIFICATIONS OF THOSE INSTALLED WILL BE REQUIRED. 6. SITE CONTRACTOR TO BECOME CO-PERMITTEE PRIOR TO EARTHWORK ACTIVITIES COMMENCING. SITE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF THE E&S PERMITS. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. ALL PAGE NUMBERS (P. 5*.**) REFER TO THE NEW YORK STATE GUIDELINES FOR URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. 2. INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (P. 5A.75). WIDTH: - TWELVE (12) FT. MINIMUM, BUT NOT LESS THAN THE FULL WIDTH AT POINTS WHERE INGRESS OR EGRESS OCCURS. IF ONLY ONE ENTRANCE IS USED THE MINIMUM WIDTH SHALL BE TWENTY-FOUR (24) FEET. 3. STANDARD SILT FENCE (P. 5A.19) SHALL THEN BE PLACED AROUND ALL DISTURBED AREAS. 4. CLEAR AND GRUB THE SITE. STRIP TOPSOIL AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE WITH PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND VEGETATIVE COVER. 5. CONSTRUCT BUILDING FOUNDATION AND ENCLOSE BUILDING. 6. CONSTRUCT STORM WATER BASINS AND PERFORM LAND GRADING IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUAL (P. 5B.49). INSURE ALL RUNOFF IS DIVERTED TO THE SEDIMENT BASIN UNTIL THE SITE IS STABILIZED (80% COVERAGE). 7. CONSTRUCT PROPOSED STORM SEWER AND INSTALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS (P. 5A.41) AT EACH INLET. 8. INLET PROTECTION (P. 5A.27) SHALL BE PLACED AROUND ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS. UTILIZE TYPE II IN AREAS OF EXCAVATION AND TYPE III IN PAVEMENT AREAS. CONVERT ALL FABRIC DROP INLET PROTECTION TO TYPE III IN-PAVEMENT PROTECTION UPON PAVING WITHIN PROJECT AREA. 9. INSTALL ROCK OUTLET PROTECTION (P. 5B.21) AT ALL STORM SEWER OUTLETS. 10. FINALIZE CONSTRUCTION OF MAIN PROJECT ELEMENTS INCLUDING INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEW PAVEMENT. 11.SPREAD TOPSOIL, FINE GRADE, SEED, MULCH AND ESTABLISH VEGETATIVE COVER. 12..REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM ANY SEDIMENT TRAPS OR BASINS. 13.REMOVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL METHODS WHEN CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS ARE STABILIZED. 00 30'60' SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com E & S PLAN C900 STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAWN AREA IMPROVEMENT · · · · · · · · · · · · PROFILE PLAN VIEW CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FILTER FABRIC STORM DRAIN PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR SILT FENCE PROTECTION BURIED FABRICDROP INLET WITH GRATE 2"X4" WOOD FRAME GATHER EXCESS AT CORNERS FRAME FABRIC STAKE RIP-RAP OUTLET APRON DETAIL OUTLET No. PIPE DIA. (in) Q (cfs) V (fps) STONE DIA. (in) W1 (ft) W2 (ft) L (ft) D (in) PERSPECTIVE VIEW SILT FENCING SECTION CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR FABRICATED SILT FENCE SWBR NYS Certificate of Authorization #: 235221 260 East Main Street Rochester NY 14604 585 232 8300 | rochester@swbr.com These documents and all the ideas, arrangements, designs and plans indicated thereon or presented thereby are owned by and remain the property of SWBR and no part thereof shall be utilized by any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever except with the specific written permission of SWBR. All rights reserved. © FI L E P A T H : Checked By: Project Manager: Drawn By: Revisions SWBR Project Number 4/16/2026 Town Sketch Plan Comments 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 07/27/2026 6/29/2026 Addendum #1 7/07/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Submission 7/27/2026 Addendum #2 8/10/2026 Town Preliminary Plan Resubmission 25189.00 JBG JBG RSN BEACON COMMUNITIES - THE WOODS Beacon Southworks - The Woods 505 Ellicott St. Suite 44 Buffalo, NY 14203 Ithaca, NY 113 East Chemung Place Elmira N.Y. 14904 Phone (607) 734-2165 Fax (607) 734-2169 www.FaganEngineers.com SOIL STOCKPILING NOTES: SOIL STOCKPILE DETAIL SLOPE INSTALLATION DETAIL Drawing Not To Scale 1. Prepare soil before installing rolled erosion control products (RECPs), including any necessary application of lime, fertilizer, and seed. 2. Begin at the top of the slope by anchoring the RECPs in a 6"(15cm) deep X 6"(15cm) wide trench with approximately 12" (30cm) of RECPs extended beyond the up-slope portion of the trench. Anchor the RECPs with a row of staples/stakes approximately 12" (30cm) apart in the bottom of the trench. Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. Apply seed to the compacted soil and fold the remaining 12"(30cm) portion of RECPs back over the seed and compacted soil. Secure RECPs over compacted soil with a row of staples/stakes spaced approximately 12"(30cm) apart across the width of the RECPs. 3. Roll the RECPs (A) down or (B) horizontally across the slope. RECPs will unroll with appropriate side against the soil surface. All RECPs must be securely fastened to soil surface by placing staples/stakes in appropriate locations as shown in the staple pattern guide. 4. The edges of parallel RECPs must be stapled with approximately 2" - 5" (5-12.5cm) overlap depending on the RECPs type. 5. Consecutive RECPs spliced down the slope must be end over end (Shingle style) with an approximate 3"(7.5cm) overlap. Staple through overlapped area, approximately 12"(30cm) apart across entire RECPs width. Drawn on: 3-16-11 Disclaimer: The information presented herein is general design information only. For specific applications, consult an independent professional for further design guidance. 2"-5" (5-12.5cm) 3B 4 2 5 1 3A 12"(30cm) 6" (15cm) 6" (15cm) *NOTE: In loose soil conditions, the use of staple or stake lengths greater than 6"(15cm) may be necessary to properly secure the RECP's. 3"(7.5cm) 5401 St. Wendel - Cynthiana Rd. Poseyville, IN 47633 PH: 800-772-2040 www.tensarnagreen.com E & S DETAILS C901 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com July 7, 2026 Update: August 18, 2026 Marty Moseley, Director Town of Ithaca Code Enforcement 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: SouthWorks Woods – Preliminary Plan Stream Setback Variance SWBR Project No. 22232.00 FE Project 2011.104-008 Dear Marty, The proposed Woods project includes two streams within the project boundary as defined in the Town Stream Setback Map. Both streams are classified those with less than 175 acre drainage areas. The following is a screenshot of the map: The required stream setback is 35 feet from the centerline with Zone 1 Setback of 20 feet and Zone 2 Setback of 15 feet. The first stream (Stream A - northern-most) is the roadside swale along Morse Place Road. This stream is actually part of the Danby Road storm sewer system and flows across the road into the site via a 30-inch storm sewer and flows along the existing SouthWorks driveway (Morse Place). Page 2 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com The second stream (Stream B – southern-most) is the discharge of the western roadside swale of Danby Road that flows south to north which diverts west into the project site. The following is a depiction of the Site Plan with an overlay of the stream setbacks: The project will result in limited encroachment into the associated stream setback areas; however, the design has been developed to avoid direct impacts to the stream channels to the maximum extent practicable and to provide appropriate stabilization, stormwater management, and restoration measures to offset the effects of the proposed encroachments. Stream A Stream A is the northernmost of the two regulated streams. Two driveway crossings of Stream A are necessary to provide site circulation and access. The total amount of impervious surfaces that will encroach into the Stream A setbacks has been minimized to 4,205 sf (0.097 acres) of pavement and 266 sf (0.006 acres) of building. Earthwork, including impervious areas, has been limited to 14,500 sf (0.333 acres) with the use of retaining walls. At Crossing No. 1, the driveway will cross Stream A utilizing an open-bottom box culvert. The structure will span from bank to bank so that the existing stream bottom will remain open and the stream channel will not be replaced with a conventional closed pipe. This approach minimizes direct disturbance to the stream channel and allows the existing streambed to remain beneath the crossing. Stream A – Crossing 1: Looking Upstream Stream A – Crossing 1: Looking Downstream Page 3 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com At Crossing No. 2, the existing drainage feature consists of a constructed concrete flume rather than a natural stream channel. The proposed driveway crossing will utilize a pipe culvert through this area. Because the crossing occurs at an existing concrete flume, the proposed work avoids disturbance to a natural streambed at this location. Stream A – Crossing 2: Looking Upstream Stream A – Crossing 2: Looking Downstream Figure 16.1: Stream A – Crossing Location Map and Dimensions Page 4 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com The driveway crossings have been located and designed to limit the extent of disturbance within the Stream A setback while providing the access and circulation necessary for the development. Stream B Stream B is the southernmost regulated stream. No direct disturbance to the stream channel or edge of bank is proposed. The requested variance is associated with grading and placement of fill within portions of the regulated stream setback. The total amount of impervious surfaces that will encroach into the Stream B setbacks has been minimized to 540 sf (0.012 acres) of pavement. Earthwork, including impervious areas, has been limited to 5,100 sf (0.117 acres) with the use of retaining walls. All proposed fill within the setback will be permanently stabilized. Depending upon location, slope, and hydraulic conditions, stabilization will consist of riprap, turf reinforcement matting, vegetation, or an appropriate combination of these measures. These measures will provide long-term erosion protection and minimize the potential for sediment migration toward Stream B. The project therefore maintains separation between the proposed development and the actual Stream B channel while limiting the requested relief to work within the setback itself. Stormwater and Erosion Control Stream B: Looking Downstream at Nearest Point Stream B: Looking Downhill at nearest Point Page 5 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Figure 16.2: Stream B – Location Map and Dimensions Stormwater and Erosion Control The project is subject to a Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and coverage under the applicable NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity. The SWPPP will address both construction-phase and post-construction stormwater management and will include erosion and sediment controls, stabilization requirements, construction sequencing, inspection and maintenance requirements, and permanent stormwater management practices. Particular attention will be given to construction activities occurring within or adjacent to the stream setback areas. Disturbed slopes will be stabilized promptly, and appropriate erosion and sediment controls will be installed between disturbed areas and the streams during construction. Permanent stabilization measures will be incorporated into the final design to minimize erosion and sediment transport following construction. Page 6 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Mitigation The applicant proposes the following measures as the mitigation package associated with the requested Stream Setback area variance: • Minimize direct stream disturbance. The project has been designed to avoid direct impacts to Stream B and to limit Stream A impacts to two necessary driveway crossings. • Open-bottom crossing at Stream A Crossing No. 1. An open-bottom box culvert will span the stream from bank to bank, maintaining the existing streambed beneath the proposed driveway. • Utilize the existing altered channel at Stream A Crossing No. 2. The second crossing will occur where the drainage feature is already conveyed through a constructed concrete flume, thereby avoiding a new crossing of an undisturbed natural streambed. • Protect Stream B. No work is proposed at the Stream B edge of bank or within the stream channel. Encroachment is limited to grading and fill within the setback. • Permanent stabilization. All fill and disturbed slopes within the stream setback areas will be permanently stabilized using riprap, turf reinforcement matting, vegetation, or other appropriate stabilization measures based upon final design conditions. • Comprehensive stormwater management. A Full SWPPP will be prepared and implemented, and NYSDEC SPDES permit coverage will be obtained. Stormwater management practices will be designed to control runoff, reduce erosion, and minimize sediment and pollutant loading to the streams. • Construction-phase protection. Enhanced erosion and sediment controls will be provided adjacent to the regulated stream corridors, with disturbed areas stabilized as soon as practicable following construction. • Placement of native riparian plantings within available disturbed portions of the stream setback, including areas where invasive species such as Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) and Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) are removed or controlled. Native cover species under consideration include fox sedge, shallow sedge, switchgrass, and Virginia wildrye. The landscape plan for these areas is currently being updated. The proposed mitigation follows the same general approach reflected in prior Town stream setback reviews, where the Town has considered measures that improve or protect riparian conditions, reduce erosion, provide permanent vegetation, and manage stormwater runoff as appropriate means of mitigating setback encroachments. For example, in its review of the Ithaca Self-Storage project, the Town specifically identified sediment capture through stormwater practices and plantings adjacent to the encroachment as measures that would mitigate impacts to the stream and riparian buffer. Page 7 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Variance Request 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; Response: No. The proposed area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The project is part of the approved redevelopment of the former SouthWorks industrial campus into a mixed- use residential neighborhood consistent with the vision established by the Planned Development Zone (PDZ No. 16) and the associated Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The requested relief is limited to a stream setback encroachment necessary to accommodate the approved site layout while preserving critical project elements, including internal circulation, emergency access, utilities, parking, and open space. The surrounding property has been previously disturbed through decades of industrial use and does not represent an undisturbed riparian corridor. The project includes comprehensive stormwater management, erosion and sediment controls, and restoration landscaping that will improve environmental conditions compared to the existing site. As a result, the requested variance will not alter neighborhood character or adversely affect adjacent properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the area variance; Response: The applicant evaluated alternative site layouts, including modifications to the building footprint, parking configuration, internal roadway alignment, and utility routing to avoid or further reduce encroachment into the stream setback. These alternatives were determined to be impractical because they would substantially reduce the functionality of the proposed development, adversely affect emergency vehicle access, parking, site circulation, utility infrastructure, and compliance with other applicable design requirements. The proposed layout has been refined to minimize the extent of the encroachment while maintaining the project's objectives and preserving the overall site design approved under the Planned Development Zone (PDZ No. 16). Accordingly, there is no other feasible alternative that would provide the same project benefits while avoiding the need for the requested area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; Response: While the requested area variance provides relief from the required stream setback, the encroachment has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable through the site design process. The requested relief is limited to those areas necessary to accommodate the approved residential development, including building placement, internal circulation, emergency access, utilities, and associated infrastructure. The variance does not authorize development throughout the entire setback, nor does it eliminate the function of the remaining stream corridor. The majority of the stream setback will remain undisturbed or will be restored and enhanced with native vegetation. In the context of the overall redevelopment of the former industrial site, the requested relief is limited in scope and represents the minimum variance necessary to achieve the project objective 4. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and Page 8 Stream Setback July 7, 2026 113 East Chemung Place | Elmira, New York 14904 | 607.734.2165 | FaganEngineers.com Response: The requested area variance will not result in a significant adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. The proposed development incorporates comprehensive erosion and sediment controls, permanent stormwater management practices designed in accordance with New York State requirements, and landscaping that includes restoration with native vegetation. The requested encroachment has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable, and the majority of the regulated stream setback will remain undisturbed or be enhanced as part of the redevelopment. Compared to the site's previous industrial use, the project will reduce impervious coverage in portions of the site, improve stormwater treatment and runoff quality, and provide long-term environmental benefits through remediation, restoration, and sustainable site design. The proposed variance will not adversely affect stream stability, water quality, flood storage, or adjacent properties 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was not self-created. Response: While the need for the area variance arises from the applicant's proposal to redevelop the property, it is largely attributable to the unique physical characteristics and constraints of the site, including the location of the stream corridor, existing topography, and the configuration of the former industrial property. The project has been carefully designed to minimize encroachment into the regulated stream setback while accommodating necessary building locations, emergency access, utilities, stormwater infrastructure, and site circulation. The requested relief is the minimum necessary to allow redevelopment of this long-vacant brownfield property in a manner consistent with the approved Planned Development Zone (PDZ No. 16) and its associated planning objectives. Although the variance may be considered technically self-created, this factor should be afforded limited weight because the proposal has been designed to minimize impacts and provides substantial public and environmental benefits through the redevelopment of a former industrial site. The project is being implemented in accordance with the approved PPDZ No. 16, the GEIS findings, and applicable NYSDEC requirements, all of which include measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts. The requested variance is associated primarily with the two necessary Stream A driveway crossings and grading within the Stream B setback. The project has been designed to avoid direct stream impacts where practicable, minimize the extent of unavoidable encroachment, and provide permanent stabilization and stormwater management measures to protect the streams and their associated riparian corridors. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the project is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact to stream stability, water quality, or the long-term function of the stream corridors. The applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Board consider the proposed mitigation plan in its review and recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the requested Stream Setback area variance. Sincerely, FAGAN ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C. James B. Gensel, P.E., CPESC President 2 0' S A N I T A R Y S E W E R R - O - W M O R S E P L A C E ROAD A DRIVE C PROJE C T B O U N D A R Y FFE BASEMENT: 751.85 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 763.35 FFE BASEMENT: 752.61 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 764.11 PROPOSED 27 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C1 FFE BASEMENT: 739.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 750.90 26 UNIT APARTMENT FFE BASEMENT: 740.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 751.90 STREAM SETBACK ZONE 2 STREAM SETBACK ZONE 1 LEGEND STREAM A CROSSING No. 1 STREAM A CROSSING No. 2 D 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING C3 FFE BASEMENT: 741.40 FFE: 1ST FLOOR: 752.90 STREAM SETBACK ZONE 2 STREAM SETBACK ZONE 1 LEGEND PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR Determination The Woods at SouthWorks Residential Development NYS Route 96B/Danby Road Tax Parcel No. 40.-3-3 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 18, 2026 WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the SouthWorks Woods project located off NYS Route 96B/Danby Road, in Town of Ithaca Planned Development Zone No.16. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the Lead Agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed site-specific SouthWorks Woods mixed-income residential project, which comprises a portion of the overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, and involves the construction of eight residential buildings with a total of 130 mixed-income apartments, including a community room, lounge, fitness center, offices, maintenance areas, and storage. The Woods project also involves the development of internal roads and infrastructure, a playground, sidewalks and path connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping, outdoor lighting, parking, and other site improvements. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will first determine if the project exceeds the threshold conditions that were outlined in the GEIS Findings Statement, therefore requiring additional or supplemental environmental review. The board will then consider Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the project. Shift Chainworks Owner 1 LLC, Owner; Beacon Communities, LLC, Applicant; James Gensel, Fagan Engineers & Land Surveyors, PC, Agent; 2. The overall SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project is located on a 95-acre parcel traversing the City and Town of Ithaca’s municipal boundary. It is a proposed mixed-use development consisting of residential, office, commercial, retail, restaurant/café, warehousing/distribution, manufacturing, and open space. The City of Ithaca, as the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the Chain Works District Redevelopment Project, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS on March 26, 2019; 3. The Town of Ithaca, as an Involved Agency in the environmental review of the SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project, issued a Findings Statement for the GEIS on May 21, 2019. The Findings Statement included a threshold condition chart and checklist for future site-specific projects associated with the overall development; 4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at their meetings on August 4, 2026, and August 18, 2026, have reviewed and accepted as adequate a project narrative with twenty (21) attachments, including: a visual impact analysis; a letter from LaBella, dated June 24, 2026, regarding soil vapor intrusion mitigation; correspondence between the applicant and Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement, regarding fire apparatus configuration and Code requirements; a letter from Fagan Engineers, dated July 20, 2026, regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans; two letters from LaBella, one dated June 29, 2026, regarding traffic assessment, and one dated August 3, 2026, regarding traffic signal warrant and left-turn lane assessment; a letter from Fagan Engineering, dated July 7, 2026 (update August 10, 2026), regarding stream setback mitigation; a letter from SWBR, dated August 10, 2026, regarding cladding materials in compliance with Town Code §271-17 (F)(6)(d); a letter from Beacon Communities, dated August 10, 2026, regarding Center for Community Transportation/TCAT Engagement; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prepared by Fagan Engineers, revised July 2026; a Page 2 of 2 Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by Foundation Design, P.C., dated March 10, 2026; an Excavation Plan, prepared by Pike; a letter from Timothy Faulkner, Fisher Associates, dated July 28, 2026, regarding SouthWorks Beacon Woods transportation assessment; Site Plan Drawings titled “Beacon Communities, The Woods at SouthWorks, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,” prepared by SWBR, dated August 14, 2024, most recently revised August 10, 2026, including sheets C100, C200, C300, C301 through C306, C400 through C407, C500 through C505, C600, C601, C700 through C702, C800 through C802, C900, and C901; Site Plan and Architectural Renderings, prepared by SWBR (no date); Exterior Elevations and Detail sheets, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, including sheets A201-A, A201-B1, A202-B2, A203-B3, A201-C1, A202-C2, and A203-C3; Layout and Materials plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, revised June 29, 2026, including sheets L-101 through L-104; Planting Plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, including sheets L-401 through L-405; Lighting Plans, prepared by SWBR, dated June 12, 2026, revised June 29, 2026, including sheets L-301 through L-307; Construction Phasing Plan, titled “The Woods Draft Phasing and Logistics Plan,” dated 6-29-26; and other materials (collectively, “Application Materials”); 5. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the Lead Agency for The Woods at SouthWorks project, has reviewed the GEIS threshold conditions, and accepted as adequate a completed GEIS threshold checklist and Part 3 EAF, prepared by Town staff, dated July 28, 2026; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds the following: 1. The Application Materials submitted for The Woods project have demonstrated that deviating from the strict sequence envisioned in the GEIS for Phase 1 allows a more thoughtful and flexible development phasing to meet market demands and allows construction of mixed- income housing sooner; 2. The Applicants agree to reinitiate review of the project with the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”), and to complete any supplemental traffic studies determined by NYSDOT and Town of Ithaca Department of Public Works to be necessary to assess traffic impacts along NYS Route 96B/Danby Road and affected local and County roads; and 2. The Woods at SouthWorks project does not exceed the threshold conditions outlined in the SouthWorks (formerly Chain Works District) Redevelopment Project GEIS Findings Statement, based on the GEIS threshold conditions outlined in the Findings Statement, the GEIS checklist attachment and Part 3 EAF prepared by Town staff, dated July 28, 2026 (revised August 11, 2026), and the reasons stated above. Therefore, The Woods at SouthWorks project does not require additional environmental review; and. 3. The Applicants shall, prior to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board proceeding with the review of other site specific projects within the SouthWorks Redevelopment Project area, reinitiate review of the project with the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”), and complete any supplemental traffic studies required by NYSDOT and Town of Ithaca Department of Public Works to allow the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and other involved and interested agencies to reassess traffic impacts along NYS Route 96B/Danby Road and affected local and County roads and potential modifications to traffic mitigation measures identified in the GEIS, given changes to NYS Route 96B/Danby Road done after completion of the GEIS. Formatted: Font: Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5", Tab stops: 0.25", Left COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 | Phone: (607) 274-5560 | tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. August 14, 2026 Christine Balestra, Senior Planner Town f Ithaca 215 North Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Subdivision and Site Plan for proposed The Woods at Southworks located at 810 Danby Road, Tax Parcel #40.-3-3, Beacon Communities, LLC, Owner; Jamie Gensel, PE, Fagan Engineers, Applicant. Dear Ms. Balestra: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. We do, however, have the same comment we shared regarding the proposed stream setback variance for this project on August 14, 2026: • The building is proposed to be located within the 50-foot buffer of the intermittent stream. While we typically recommend that projects avoid disturbing land within that 50-foot buffer, because the town has its own stream setback law, we defer to the Town to ensure that water quality will be protected. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD July 7, 2026 DRAFT MINUTES The full video recording of this meeting is available on YouTube@TownofIthacaVideo (Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24 hours after the meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.) Present: Caitlin Cameron, Chair; Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Sara Reynolds (via videoconferencing) and Gideon Casper Absent: Kelda McGurk and Vincent Ferrara CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner; Nate VanWhy, Attorney for the Town; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Justin McNeal, Director of Engineering; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Ms. Cameron called the meeting to order at 6:30p.m. 1. Persons to be heard – None 2. Consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding proposed amendments to Town Code, Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land (Attachment 1 – Memo/History) Ms. Randall gave a brief history of the Subdivision regulations and the process so far of revising them and referred to the Planning Department’s memo outlining same. Ms. Bageant asked for a big picture summary- the revised regulations solving problems or changing the direction of certain actions? From a Planning Board perspective, what were some of the challenges with the existing legislation and what changes are addressing those? Ms. Balestra responded that the easiest changes to explain is one that clearly lays out the difference between a lot-line modification and a small subdivision request and the other that clarifies what a major subdivision is and how many lots that involves. The biggest change is related to cluster subdivisions. The Comprehensive Plan has very clearly stated goals and objectives regarding clustered subdivisions. Ms. Bageant said she reads this draft as clustered subdivisions are the default and traditional or conventional subdivisions are still permitted but there are criteria that developers will need to meet to prove that they can achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan better by following a conventional subdivision rather than a cluster subdivision. She added that the current legislation is very hard to read and follow, and this is much better in that way. Ms. Reynolds asked what they should be considering as pressure points or challenges over the PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 2 next 10, 15, 20 and more years as we review this. Ms. Randall responded that there are a number of goals in the 2014 Comprehensive Plan to shift toward clustering and the 1992 Open Space Index essentially laid out a plan to do that. The Board discussed options for going through the draft. Mr. Arms stated that he was on the Codes & Ordinances Committee which spent the better part of 3 years drafting this, and, unless there are specific questions on a section, the one with the most fundamental policy decisions in his opinion is the section on cluster subdivisions and space usage and he felt that should be the focus of this Board. The Board decided to go through the revised regulations Article by Article: Article I Policy and Applicability – Staff clarified NYS Law vs Town Code for members. Article II Terminology – No substantive comments. Article III Classification & Procedures Applicable to All Applicants, §234-10.G – There was confusion about “application provisions” versus “application submissions.” Ms. Balestra said that staff would work on clarifying the wording. Article IV Lot Line Adjustments – No substantive comments. Article V Minor Subdivisions – No substantive comments. Article VI Major Subdivisions – The Board broke this Article into sections for discussion: § 234-20 Final Subdivision Review: Ms. Reynolds asked about the process of the Town accepting utilities and/or streets and whether that is automatic or the developer has to ask for it. Mr. McNeal explained that it is generally an option that goes through committee and departmental review and then if the developer wants the Town to accept it, any infrastructure must be built to Town specifications, and then it is up to the Town Board whether or not to accept it. § 234-21 Planning Board findings and decision: Mr. Arms noted that this is where the legislation gives the Planning Board more discretion than it has now and when one thinks of planning and what a Planning Board can do; at one extreme there are just a set of rules and we have to follow them and the other extreme of do we like it or not. Our Zoning says if it fits the rules, it is approved, and this legislation gives the Planning Board a bit more discretion in influencing design in aesthetic criteria, and he said he personally did not want to get to a situation in which our aesthetics become dominant, but he does welcome a bit of movement towards giving us a bit more opportunity to have input into design criteria. Ms. Balestra responded that Section C applies when Site Plan Review is required, and that is PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 3 when the board would discuss design criteria for architectural integrity and cohesiveness of the entire subdivision. Discussion followed with members asking if the Site Design Criteria Manual is expected to be guidelines or requirements. Ms. Randall gave the history and scope of developing the Site Design and Criteria Manual which will include specifications for roads, water and sewers which will have technical requirements for developers. Ms. Cameron asked if that was just the technical requirements but not to Mr. Arms’s point. She said her understanding has been that this Board does not comment on design unless it is a PDZ so she was confused where this section lists design principles. Are these reiterating the Design and Site Plan Criteria that is technical or are these things we are supposed to consider? Ms. Randall responded that it is the latter and this is the line we are trying to walk. Subdivision regulations are not Zoning but if we are looking at large subdivision development then the Planning Board should have some ability to think about at least some options related to design. She used a recent presentation for some modular homes that just looked like cars lived there (all garages),so we asked for other models and careful placement of the structures. When a subdivision that is really big, we don’t want all the structures to look identical, and this is to give some of that flexibility to the Board. She added that Staff is open to suggestions on how to make that happen. Ms. Bageant said she had the same question; does this align with what we do now? Because the language is more specific than the language that goes through my mind when looking at a subdivision. She also said the 25 lot distinction was confusing- is it a separate category or a major subdivision, minor subdivision? What triggers these considerations that give us a lot of discretion? She said she did not have a strong opinion on the fundamental question of how much we want to be able to shape these really big subdivisions in terms of design. She asked if, for example, you are allowed 20 lots under conventional subdivision, with 40 units and the developer comes in and says they are going to put all 40 units in one building and the rest will be parks and trails, the Planning Board can waive mass restrictions such as the types of housing area and dimensional requirements and building heights in the cluster subdivisions in Section F because we are trying to cluster or compress the allowed units into one area, correct? Mr. Arms added that the proposed language in section C provides discretion that depends upon having a responsible planning board and responsible planning staff, which we have, but that is not the case in other municipalities that he has read about. He said a developer should have the reasonable expectation that a reasonable application will be accepted without a random member of the board saying, “I don’t like it, go back to square one.” PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 4 Ms. Reynolds said the legislation does say “…to ensure the proposals meet the Town’s Comprehensive Plan’s Goals…” which sets a base. She asked Ms. Randall to clarify her earlier statement about Zoning not having design standards. Ms. Randall said that zoning does not have design standards; if you pull a building permit and the project meets the Zoning requirements as to lot size, setbacks, height and footprint, and NYS Building Code safety requirements, then you can build it. What we are trying to do is to give us the ability to ask for plans to be a bit more deliberate about the design and how it would function as a neighborhood and also have some aesthetic considerations to go along with it. The Board asked for examples that have been through the cluster subdivision approval process. Ms. Balestra responded that the only recent cluster subdivisions (2010 to present) were the Holochuck Homes and Amabel subdivisions – Amabel involved a re-zoning and Holochuck was never built. Ms. Cameron said she felt Section C needed revision. Her concern was that the language said “the exterior characteristics of proposed structures shall demonstrate consistency with objective architectural design principles including but not limited to…” and then it lists topic areas but there's nothing there that are actual objective architectural design principles. She asked if the law contained those principals elsewhere and questioned whether there would be an architectural design manual, or if the list in the draft law was supposed to be objective architectural design criteria because they are design principles, not design criteria and the list is not objective enough to guide the board or applicants. The board discussed clarifying the language in the list to avoid the situation where a board member could make arbitrary determinations based on their opinion and not through applying objective criteria. One idea would be to prioritize the most important requirements and to clearly write criteria based on those requirements. Ms. Cameron asked if the list in Section C was more like a template or palette of guidelines for future home development in a subdivision. Planning staff responded yes and provided an example scenario: a developer seeks approval for a 25-lot subdivision. The layout meets the cluster provisions; the town gets smaller or a variety of lots, along with conservation lands, an arterial road with street trees, playground, and amenities. There are ten (10) home designs to choose from. The developer provides the Planning Board with what the designs are, and the board has the discretion to require front porches, or different placement on the lots, etc. Ms. Cameron said she tends towards not wanting to review reviewing for design when it's not going to result in more units, which is the scenario you just laid out. She added that the scenario raised another question for her, which is when would the design criteria be applied? If the subdivision is just a property being subdivided without any plans to PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 5 build yet, then the homes are not designed at that point. Is this intended to be a template or palette of guidelines for future homes as they come through subdivision approval? Ms. Randall responded that it is, yes. Here is a list of 10 homes that this builder is going to choose from. Here's what they look like, give or take and they may need to scooch them back and forth or make a different porch or garage to accommodate it. The Planning Board can feel fairly confident that this is the style of home that this builder is going to do over the next five years as they build out . Ms. Cameron clarified that this would be a submittal from the developer then, depicting the types of homes they plan on building. Ms. Randall said yes, and it is important to remember that the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) areas in the town are going to follow the New Neighborhood Code which has a lot of design standards in it; it's pretty much a full form based code. It does have uses in it, but it is fairly strict in design elements, and she said that is where we are ultimately going to see most of the development in town where the items listed in Section C contain much less form and design. She said she would not be heartbroken if this was left out, but the intent was to give the Planning Board some control to make large subdivisions less cookie-cutter while not feeling intimidated by our having some design standards. Ms. Bageant asked if the sentence under discussion was removed, what would the findings be based upon? What does the sentence and the one prior to it add other than ambiguity? She said she is concerned about future planning boards blocking development based on something that she considers subjective. Mr. VanWhy asked if the Planning Board’s concern is the litany of things listed in the sentence in Section C because he was not sure that keeping the following sentence avoided the issue either, because what is “visual monotony, excessive bulk or discord forms?” If the Board’s concern is that a lack of objective standards here, I think those are also not objective standards. He said what he sees is that the Board does not want to undermine the Town's Comprehensive Plan goals and wants compatibility with the surrounding context; visual cohesion and alignment with any existing guidelines and neighborhoods. Those are the points that seem substantial or firm. Mr. Arms said that the Comprehensive Plan’s goals are written at a very high level and they are not things that you can use to make operational decisions. He said the wording is basically reasonable, and the Board could wordsmith it forever without solving the underlying problem of where judgment comes in, but he would go with the consensus of the members. Discussion followed, noting that a building permit can allow a house that is “out of scale” with the neighborhood, but if you build under subdivision, that is under scrutiny. Ms. Randall reminded that board that, per NYS law, subdivision is a privilege. It is discretionary PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 6 and therefore a lot of these findings the Planning Board has to make are somewhat discretionary because it is a privilege to subdivide, as opposed to the right to build upon an approved lot. You have to seek approval for a subdivision and have an approved subdivision to build on it. Ms. Cameron moved on to §234-21.I Ms. Bageant noticed that the item lists the specific species and diameter of trees to preserve, stating that she loves that because trees are often discussed without this type of guideline to consider. Ms. Balestra said that these findings will be listed in the Planning Board resolution for a project. We envision the findings list as a template for the board to essentially go through the findings at the meeting and state the reasons for the findings in the resolution- like we do with special permit criteria. Town staff would have met with developers prior to Planning Board appearances to help them meet the rules and regulations of the town. Staff then provide draft findings in the resolution for the board to consider and amend. She added that this type of approach is only possible because the Town of Ithaca has professional planners on staff to provide this support and that is not the norm in other municipalities. Ms. Cameron suggested putting this section on hold to allow members to think more about it and discuss at the next meeting. The board agreed. Section C in §234-21 will be revisited. Article VII Subdivision Design Standards – §234-23. General Procedures Mr. Arms said that the first statement, “Cluster subdivision is required in all cases of new major subdivisions” is a very major policy decision and he cannot remember any large subdivision that didn't ask for specialized zoning, which we call a planned development zone (PDZ). When developers look at what they want to do and what makes sense for the town, they say we'll do a special purpose zoning or PDZ, and that worries him. The other thing is we're seeing only a handful of smaller developments because for some reason the incentives are not there for developers to put their money on the table and build any housing, let alone affordable housing. So, the question is, when we say cluster subdivision is required in all cases, with some minor exceptions, what impact are we going to have on what happens in the future? Is this going to mean that we get more or less, or better or worse, or no housing at all? Mr. Arms added that he had his say at the Codes and Ordinances Committee meetings and lost that battle, but he wanted to say it here too. Ms. Bageant said she had a different perspective; there's an argument to be made that clustered subdivisions actually align with incentives better than traditional subdivisions because financing is a lot easier with larger numbers of units, things like that, so she wasn’t sure she agreed with the premise that starting at clustering as a default is inherently screwing up the incentives and she thought it is moving us in in a better direction. She added that there is room for someone to show they cannot cluster due to Y or Z, so it is not as prescriptive as it seems. There has been a lot of outside forces like COVID and post COVID economics that have changed the trajectory and financial costs of development for everyone involved. PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 7 Ms. Reynolds said that we use the word “encourage” and that is meaningless; it should either be required or not. This is very progressive and commendable, but to Mr. Arm’s point, it is very important to have incentives to make it financially feasible or to make it required. §234.24 Cluster Subdivision – Ms. Cameron polled the board on continuing given the hour. Members felt this section would take a lot of time because there is a lot of detail and Ms. Cameron asked for immediate reactions. Ms. Bageant mentioned that the color scheme on the depictions are confusing and suggested blue for water features. She also suggested that buffers or non-buildable areas should be a non- natural color like red or yellow, etc. and she would be happy to help with that. Planning staff appreciated the comments and will revise the graphics accordingly. Mr. Quilty-Koval gave a presentation on the Resources Analysis process that a developer would follow to create the yield for a clustered subdivision, taking into account the criteria in §234- 24.D. (Attachment 1) Comments for future discussions: • Once you consider clustering, are the underlying zoning limitations waived? Yes, because they limit the buildable area. • Where did the 40% open space figure come from? Basis for 80% in classes 1 and 2? That is new and from the Town of Canangaigua’s Conservation Subdivision regulations. The current open space requirement in the existing town law is 10% and not specified as to what type of open space is preserved. • The board should discuss whether we are comfortable with those numbers. • What are the incentives to developers to cluster? Can you build more units? If not, why? Infrastructure cost savings are an incentive to builders. • Why are there 3 Natural Resources classes instead of 2; combine the similar ones? • Concerns about scaring away builders. • Concerns about the rigidity of the requirements that could last for the next 10-20 or more years. • Size of parcel and natural restrictions play a huge role. Ms. Cameron suggested wrapping up the discussions and thinking about it all for the next meeting and bringing our comments then. She said this will probably take at least another couple of meetings to go through. Board left off on §234-24, page 11 of the pdf, line 544. PB 2026-07-07 (Filed 7/27) 8 3. Approval of Minutes – Motion made by Ms. Bageant, seconded by Mr. Arms to approve the May 5th and 19th minutes; unanimous. 4. Other Business – Ms. Balestra reviewed the status and process of the SouthWorks project and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and other projects coming soon to the Board. She mentioned that there was a new Planning Board member that would attend the next meeting on July 21, 2026. The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second; unanimous. Submitted by Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD July 21, 2026 Draft MINUTES The full video recording of this meeting is available on YouTube @TownofIthacaVideo (Written comments submitted at the meeting or after posting of the official mailout packet and 24 hours after the meeting can be found in the updated packet online and will be filed permanently with the project folder along with any other comments received after the post meeting deadline.) Present: Liz Bageant, Vice Chair, Bill Arms, Sara Reynolds, Vincent Ferrara (ZOOM), and Jenni Minner Absent: Caitlin Cameron, Kelda McGurk, and Gideon Casper CJ Randall, Director of Planning (8:15), Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, and Nick Quilty- Koval, Planner; Nate VanWhy, Attorney for the Town; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Ms. Bageant called the meeting to order and introduced new board member Jenni Minner. 1. Persons to be heard - None 2. Continue to consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding proposed amendments to Town Code, Chapter 234, Subdivision of Land. Ms. Cameron noted that some Board members began the review of the draft legislation at the July 7th meeting and that review will continue tonight. Mr. Quilty-Koval gave another presentation on the Resource Analysis calculations depicting the different types of buildings requested by the board at the last meeting. The presentation also contained a different buildout analysis that met the percentages required. (Attachment 1) The Board then continued their review of the draft legislation, picking up where they left off on July 7th: Article VII: Subdivision Design Standards §234-24. Cluster subdivisions. B – Cluster general design standards and procedures. Who does the analysis of the whole site? The developer does the Resource Analysis, and staff reviews it. If there are questions about particular resources, the Planning Board can require the developer to engage a professional consultant, e.g., an arborist or botanist. Who is going to manage the open space that is set aside and how? How do we ensure we achieve PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 2 the objective of having open space? We cannot control land we do not own. It is an aspirational goal. If you look under D.3., “the preliminary plat is required to show any lands that should be protected by a conservation easement or a plat notation or other conservation measures.” That is new in this draft; the initial thought was to require conservation easements, but on the advice of Counsel, we broadened it to allow other options because the Town may not want to hold a conservation easement in every instance. Discussion followed on how the open space could or would be managed. D – Resource Analysis. Why is there a requirement to show a conventional lot layout? It is the standard requirement in New York State Law and is in our current Code. Some of the issues with this section is that we need to work around the underlying law which is not appropriate for what we are trying to do. Discussion followed, with Board members expressing disappointment that there is no incentive to cluster in terms of units; e.g., 70 units allowed either way, using conventional or clustered layouts. Some Board members felt there is a tradeoff between the ease of subdivision happening and housing being built and the conservation - and the 40% preservation requirement is quite high and may have the unintended consequences of nothing being built. Board members asked staff to provide more information related to density bonuses. How are we going to require applicants to avoid “fragmentation of conservation assets to maintain wildlife corridors?” The wording is vague as to what urban wildlife that is accustomed to humans and birds that are sensitive to them. Regarding parking and staging under canopy or trip lines of trees. What if they are diseased, or must be removed? It is very specific there, but how is the input on a view of the lake? Is it going to be the Planning Board’s job to decide what preserved because there is a wide range of scenarios in those descriptive words without a lot of guidance in the law? Staff explained that the procedures listed in D.1-4 are not new. This Board evaluates subdivisions the same way right now. For example, staff looks at the DEC-protected lists and mapping programs and our Open Space Index, and all our other resources and we work with the developers to identify the most environmentally sensitive land. Staff composes a memo for the Board detailing those discussions, our recommendations, and draft resolutions. The Board has the authority to preserve certain trees and allow other trees to be cut, when necessary, even when they are above the diameters listed. The proposed metrics are more specific because we were advised by Counsel to be very specific in the revised regulation. This draft law puts current practices in writing. Are we concerned about segmentation? One large parcel builds on 20% then comes back in 10 years wanting to build on another part of the parcel. Yes - we have always been told that the Planning Board can only look at what is in front of them. We are not allowed to look at adjacent PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 3 properties or assume future development and our analysis can only be on what they are telling us as stated in their application materials, memos, correspondence and appearances before the board. We try to avoid segmentation under B.7. A good portion of this revised law was based extensively on the Town of Canandaigua’s law which is a really good, progressive conservation subdivision regulation and design guideline that is quite successful. Also from Randall Arendt’s Conservation Subdivision books, which are the gold standard in subdivision regulations. In D.3 of the Resource Analysis, it says this cluster subdivision must be designed to protect the conservation assets proposed to be preserved from future disturbance due to incompatible development, changes in ecological function or other impacts associated with the development of the site. Is that protecting it from incompatible development on those lands or lands next to it? What is “incompatible development?” A playground? A dog park? A new trail or path? Those are considered an asset in the beginning, but would they be “incompatible development” later on through old forest? Staff understood the point of the comment and will review and look at clarifying. Moving back to Section C, it essentially rules out conventional subdivisions and that is a very big barrier and maybe it should not be so strict. It seems onerous to have a developer have to go through both the conventional and cluster subdivision calculations and layout to prove that clustering will not work. One must meet all three criteria in the Resource Analysis, not and/or, correct? How many cluster subdivisions have come to the town and how many were built or not built? Staff responded that if the lot is less than 5 acres in size, the developer can have a conventional subdivision and not sketch out a cluster option or do a Resource Analysis. On more than 5 acres, a conventional and Resource Analysis for a cluster subdivision is required and conventional subdivision can only happen if the analysis shows clustering cannot be done, for example, topography or easement restrictions on the parcel that preclude clustering, but clustering is the default under this draft legislation. Staff added that the Town’s Comprehensive Plan is very explicit about requiring clustered subdivisions for all new subdivisions; and staff tried their best to comply with the Comprehensive Plan Regarding clustered subdivisions in the town, the Holochuck Subdivision was a cluster subdivision that went through the full process with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) but was never built. Planning staff explained that the Town grows slowly, about half of a percent a year, and so we put plans in place such as the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Regulations, and Traditional Neighborhood Development-Regulating Plans to think many, many years in the future and build out incrementally. The Town also has an Open Space Report that was done in the 1990’s that outlines, categorizes and maps all of the really sensitive environmental characteristics in the Town; the slopes, the woods, the streams, etc. We used the Open Space Index in the report to create the Resource Analysis categories and metrics. PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 4 The term and implications of “immediately adjacent” should be reviewed. A barn on one corner of a 10 acre parcel; is development on the other side “immediately adjacent” to the “historic site?” Is it a site or a house? Land including or immediately adjacent to historic sites. What's a historic site? For example, solar developments proposed adjacent to a historic property, but the historic part of that historic property, even though they don't own the farmland over there where solar is proposed, but you are supposed to be at that historic site and look upon the landscape and feel like you're in farm, would that array be denied? What is the intention behind this? Discussion on historic sites and the National Register and how an old barn or farmhouse would come in to play in the analysis. The Town did a historic resources inventory of all of the homes and buildings in the Town; and there are a bunch that are eligible for listing, but there aren’t any undeveloped areas listed on the National or State Register. The Town's Limited Historic Commercial Overlay District was created to accommodate a few properties that are on West Hill that have historic significance and are eligible for listing on the National and State Registers. There's an application process for owners to put those properties under Overlay, but unlike the City of Ithaca, the Town does not have a ton of historical buildings or a Landmark Preservation Committee that oversees historic preservation. The intention behind this is to preserve the integrity of historic sites which could include structures or lands depending on what NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (SHPO) says has historic value. The other section in the Resource Analysis is related to the preservation of views. The County and the Town both have Scenic Resource Inventories that list the viewsheds that have been classified as Views of Significant Importance or Noteworthy with some also being along the NYS Scenic Byway. We would look at these as two different things, but in the same Resource Analysis category. Why are there 3 classes? Because it seems some items in Class 2 could be included in Class 1 if historic preservation is that important? Including historic sites in Class 4 (b) [6] was a request by town staff because we do not have many of them. What is meant by “immediately adjacent”? An old barn on the far corner of 10 acres is not immediately adjacent to the parcel on the other end. Taken from the vantage of a historical site, solar farms where you are looking out and expect to see a farm, but instead you see solar panels on the adjacent site; what is the intention behind the statement? The intention is to preserve the integrity of historic sites which could include structures, depending on what SHPO says. E – Calculation methodology to determine required open space and conservation assets in cluster subdivisions, based on Resource Analysis. Members felt the 40% required open space of the parent parcel was very high, especially with no incentive for additional units, and were concerned about the unintended consequence of people not building in the Town because it isn’t financially feasible without added units. We will get more undeveloped land, and maybe that is the Town’s intent, but the Town Board should think of PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 5 that trade off specifically. Turning back to the calculation methodology, what is the rationale for at least 80% versus at least 40% preserved open space for class 2 and 3 assets? What is the nexus or the rationale for the percentages? The draft law requires preservation of 80% Class 2 assets but only 40% of Class 3 assets, which implies that Class 3 assets are half as important as Class 2. Could they be combined to streamline them, outside of the actual discussion on the actual percentages? Staff stated that the percentages were taken from the Canandaigua law; and staff knew that we might have to tweak the numbers. When staff went through the exercise of trying to figure out what we could accomplish in terms of preservation through the Resource Analysis, we thought that we were able to capture what we needed to capture and still allow development under these numbers. What about the Class 2 - 80% number? We wanted to prioritize the assets in Class 2 because they rose to a higher level in the Open Space Index. Some of the Class 3 resources were not identified in the Open Space Index. For example, we didn’t have the Scenic Resources Inventory in the 1990’s, so it was not envisioned in the Open Space Index. Mr. Arms expressed concern over the increase of required preserved land for clustered subdivisions, from 10% requirement in the current regulation to 40% in the proposed. He quoted a section of the 1997 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan [staff note: that plan is also being updated to reflect the 2014 goals of the Comprehensive Plan]. He said he can't support the numbers. He said he could accept that at least 30% of all land that contains Class 2 assets and maybe 30% of Class 3, that would be okay. He said Nick’s example was a good one. It showed what looked like a good conventional subdivision, but it didn’t meet the requirements. Mr. Arms went on to say that if he owned 25 acres, he would have the choice to build 35 homes with 35 accessory units over the entire land, or he can cluster the same number of units on 9.5 acres. His opinion is that that is a major disincentive to people who may build affordable or good housing and he believes that is fundamentally wrong. Discussion followed with members not having specific suggestions on the percentages but agreeing that this needs more discussion and speaking broadly. Ms. Bageant - The policy decision around the tradeoff of disincentivizing housing by prioritizing conservation when the Town really wants to prioritize housing is something that should be given careful thought. Ms. Minner - If we're talking about whether considering generally that there should be a cluster for developers to pursue, I would be in support in spirit of having that option. I think it's important to have an option that incentivizes conservation. There may be negative effects if this is the only option for large scale subdivisions and we don't want to zone out the ability for the Town to contribute to traditional neighborhood development that serves others and helps us meet the density needed for transportation options or to achieve affordable housing. Density bonuses or inclusionary zoning or other options should be considered. The reason we have a Comprehensive Plan is to try to outline all of these goals. We should be PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 6 achieving our housing goals, and we should be preserving ecological functions. I'm not against whenever we take a piece of land and say it will not be built on for all time but that also means we are condemning some other piece of land to be built upon, otherwise we won't get the houses. But the primary consideration is the disincentives to anybody to build anything, which is a serious problem. Are the percentages defensible or arbitrary and does it serve our goals to have 3 classes. Members wanted to hear staff’s rationale of the numbers given. Ms. Balestra responded, saying that we modeled this on another municipality’s law and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which are very strict. When we did the draft based upon the percentages given and went through a development exercise using the requirements and the Resource Analysis, we were pleasantly surprised that the property in the example was developable. This proved to us that it is doable. She added that it is also reasonable to ask for those numbers to be tweaked. Ms. Randall apologized for coming in late and clarified that the intention with the subdivision regulations are to provide a framework for major subdivisions, specifically in areas that would not necessarily be serviced by utilities because we don't want to see utilities further extended. She said that is part of the philosophical basis for this draft. More intense housing construction and development will absolutely happen but is intended in other areas of the Town. Ms. Randall shared the Future Land Use map and pointed out some of the major character areas where other forms of more dense development would be permitted. The Country Club of Ithaca is an area of concern. We have the TND High Density area with the Maplewood Apartment developments where 615 units are not developed yet. SouthWorks, which will provide housing of about 100 units in the City and 130 in the Town is another area, and then there’s the South Hill TND area. The Town has been active in purchasing open space: the Sage Preserve, Ithaca College Wetlands and Buttermilk Falls, creating a great opportunity for high-density development in the South Hill TND area. There are areas on West Hill that are designated for TND Medium Density. The Planning, Public Works, and Engineering Departments worked really closely when developing this Future Land Use map to make sure these lines are kind of hard, almost growth boundaries in a way, but a bit softer because they are not zoning boundaries, although they do follow zoning boundaries pretty closely. Ms. Randall said that if Board members are concerned about how the subdivision regulations will affect those areas slated for development, they shouldn’t be, because they are already slated for TND. TNDs have their own rules where density should be maxed out, and so we are thinking about this subdivision regulation as being complimentary to our efforts towards developing the TNDs. Mr. Arms stated that he raised this in Committee, but it seems like all major development seem to come through by Planned Development Zone, presumably because the subdivision rules don’t allow what they want to do, and passing this legislation will simply push more of them to turn to PDZ requests to give them flexibility. PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 7 Ms. Bageant assed that that begs the question if cluster subdivision regulations are needed. Ms. Randall responded that the cluster subdivision regulations are a guided path for an option other than special zoning for a PDZ. The intent is to make sure we are aiming the developer towards the conservation we want to see. Ms. Bageant suggested this meaty section be put aside and the Board can review the remaining sections that are somewhat standard. The Board agreed. F- Housing types, area and dimensional requirements, building heights in cluster subdivisions. Why are the setbacks being required? To provide a buffer to existing homes that may be next to a proposed cluster subdivision. G- Flag lots. What is the basis for limiting flag lots to two. Staff showed the board an example of a flag lot subdivision and explained that we want to discourage these because they can cause legal problems with easements and similar, but on the positive side, they do allow for infill. Some issues with the example given: all have their own driveways rather than a shared one and four driveways in a row is not great for sight line visibility; people are upset when development happens behind them in what was their “backyard”; our Town Code limits them especially in length to avoid issues of being able to get into your property. The existing subdivision regulations are silent on flag lots, so we thought there should at least be some criteria to follow. From a land use perspective and maximizing yield flag lots are not preferred, and we are trying to develop little neighborhoods, not a string of driveways. §234-28. Reservation of land for public utilities. Letter B, related to individual sewage system provisions, is this another reason we are encouraging or requiring cluster subdivision? Are you trying to steer people where you want development to go and then steer where cluster subdivision happens? We want people to go through the process of looking at both conventional and cluster subdivisions to open them to the alternative to conventional subdivisions and we do not want to extend public water and sewer. We want to preserve our agricultural lands and needing 2 acres for private septic…before you know it, that is all you have. §234-29. Reservations of parks and recreational lands. The first sentence in A.3. should be moved up to be the first sentence in A. What is the purpose of the plat notations of reserved park land in conventional subdivision? Final plat notations make it clear that the land would be unbuildable. The Town does not necessarily want to take ownership of all designated park land. PB 2026-07-21 (Filed 7/29) Pg. 8 Discussion followed on the legalities of Town-owned parkland verses non-Town owned but designated parkland under NYS law and what the Planning Board could require and how. Discussion around noting a portion as unbuildable by conservation easements, plat notations and deed restrictions. The remaining sections in the draft law had some basic discussion but the Board had no substantive comments. Do you have what you need to review and list the Board’s discussion? Staff felt they were clear on the major concerns. Staff will take the Planning Board comments and recommendations and compile a bulleted list of the concerns raised for the Board to review and provide further comments at a future meeting. 3. Approval of Minutes - None 4. Other Business – Brief review of upcoming projects. The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second, unanimous. Submitted by Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk