HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Packet 2024-12-17
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, December 17, 2024 6:30 P.M.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will
have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom (by
raising hand icon) at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382.
If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the
livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live).
AGENDA
1. Persons to be heard.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Other Business.
4. SEQR Determination: Maplewood Phase II Project – Maple Avenue.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Proposed
Rezoning for the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate
Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning from
Multiple Residence and High Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ), involves
consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing 615 units/800
beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated
amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities,
and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review
Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer,
Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent.
6. Presentation and Update on the proposed Cornell Game Farm Road Field Hockey Field project on Game
Farm Road, located immediately east of the existing Cornell soccer fields. The proposal involves
constructing new field hockey facilities in two phases, with phase one including the conversion of the
existing grass practice field into a synthetic turf field along with construction of a new driveway,
formalized parking area, pedestrian amenities, and two small support facilities (a 1,700 +/- square foot rest
room/team room building, and a 480 +/- square foot press box). Phase two involves the construction of a
clubhouse for the field hockey team, with locker rooms, meeting rooms, physical therapy rooms, lounge,
toilets, showers, and indoor synthetic turf training space. Phase two is projected to be constructed within
five years of the athletic field installation. The project also includes new lighting, landscaping, stormwater
facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant;
Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent.
7. Consider approval of the 2025 Planning Board Meeting Schedule.
8. Consider a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2025.
9. Adjournment.
C.J. Randall
Director of Planning
607-273-1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
CHRISTINE BALESTRA AT 607-273-1747 or CBALESTRA@TOWNITHACANY.GOV.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
Accessing Meeting Materials Online
Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town’s website at
https://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, December 17, 2024, starting at 6:30 P.M. on the
following matter:
Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Proposed Rezoning for the
Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student
Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning from
Multiple Residence and High Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ),
involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing
615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also
include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces,
stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review. Cornell University,
Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC,
Agent.
Members of the public are welcome to attend in-person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom. The public will
have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments in-person or through Zoom (by
raising hand icon) at https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83643764382.
If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the
livestream video on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC9vycXkJ6klVIibjhCy7NQ/live).
Any person wishing to address the board will be heard. In addition, comments can be sent via email to
clerks@townithacany.gov up to the end of business the day of the meeting and all comments will be forwarded
to the board. Additional information is available at https://townithacany.gov/.
C.J. Randall, Director of Planning
Pg. 1
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 1, 2024
DRAFT MINUTES
Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair; Cindy Kaufman, Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, Gary
Stewart, and Sara Reynolds Absent: Kelda McGurk
CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval,
Planner, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, David O’Shea, Director of Engineering, Justin
McNeal, Civil Engineer, Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, Ashley Colbert,
Deputy Town Clerk
Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:30p.m.
1. Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to proposed
driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone Quarry
Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone Quarry
Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as
drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also
involves excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing
temporary stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities
post-construction. Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant.
Mr. Mandl provided a brief overview of the project, saying that he has owned the property for 35
years and they want to extend the driveway to be able to access the back part of their property.
SEQR Determination
There were no changes to the SEQR Form.
PB Resolution 2024-018: SEQR Special Permit
Stone Quarry Road Driveway Extension
Tax Parcel No.’s 39.-1-33.1 & 40.-3-11
Whereas:
1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to
proposed driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone
Quarry Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone
Quarry Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as
drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also involves
excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing temporary
stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities postconstruction.
Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant,
Pg. 2
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in
the environmental review with respect to Special Permit,
3. The Planning Board, on October 1, 2024, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3
prepared by Town Planning staff, a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and set of
drawings (Sheets S2, S3, S4, & S5) titled “Mandl Driveway Expansion” dated 02/12/2024,
prepared by Richard Mandl, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Special Permit; now, therefore be it
Resolved:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced
action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in
the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be
required.
Moved: Bill Arms Seconded: Liz Bageant
Vote: ayes- Wilcox, Cameron, Kaufman, Arms, Reynolds, Stewart & Bageant
Public Hearing
Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 6:50p.m.; there was no one wishing to speak and the
hearing was closed.
Determination
Mr. Wilcox asked if they were proposing any future use of the parcel where the proposed
driveway is providing access to.
Mr. Mandl responded that there are no current plans, but it is a buildable lot, and he would not
want that ruled out for the future.
PB Resolution 2024-019: Special Permit
Stone Quarry Road Driveway Extension
Tax Parcel No.’s 39.-1-33.1 & 40.-3-11
Whereas:
1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the deposit and removal of fill relative to
proposed driveway improvements on an adjacent property immediately south of 229 Stone
Quarry Road. The project involves extending the existing driveway that serves 229 Stone
Quarry Road to provide improved vehicle access to the rear portion of the property as well as
Pg. 3
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
drainage improvements along the driveway and Stone Quarry Road. The project also
involves excavating approximately 550 cubic yards of topsoil and shale and installing
temporary stormwater management facilities during construction and permanent facilities
postconstruction. Richard Henry Mandl, Jr., Owner/Applicant,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead
agency in the environmental review with respect to the project, has, on October 1, 2024,
made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 1, 2024, reviewed, and accepted
as adequate Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and set of drawings (Sheets S2,
S3, S4, & S5) titled “Mandl Driveway Expansion” dated 02/12/2024, prepared by
Richard Mandl, and other application materials; now, therefore be it
Resolved:
1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the special permit standards of Article XXIV
Section 270-200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically
that:
A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the
property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics.
• The property contains an existing driveway that will be extended easterly up the hill
side along the property line, as well as improvement to stormwater facilities along
Stone Quarry Road. The proposed improvements work with the site’s existing
physical characteristics.
B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area.
• There are no proposed new structures and no changes to the site layout, other than
extending the existing gravel drive up the hillside.
C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes,
vibration, illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted
use in the particular zone.
• The use of the property will not change. The proposed driveway extension will create
temporary impacts that will cease when the work is completed.
D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services,
roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate
capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
• The only changes to community infrastructure include redirecting of runoff to
existing town highway drop inlets from modest improvements to onsite stormwater
facilities
Pg. 4
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of
the Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan.
• Proposed modifications require review and approval of a Basic SWPPP by the Town
Engineering, and a culvert permit for connection to the Town owned storm system.
The attached memo from the Town Engineering Department dated September 19th,
2024, details the approval of the Basic SWPPP and comments on the requirement for
a culvert permit with the Public Works Department.
F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic
circulation, and parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is
safely designed for emergency vehicles.
G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect
surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible.
• The site is a densely forested hillside with substantial buffer around the surrounding
area. There are several small diameter saplings between 2” and 4” proposed
relocation, and five 12” diameter trees (3 maple, one cork elm, 1 white ash) planned
for removal.
H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure
complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270,
Zoning.
• Site Plan approval is not required with Special Permit when associated with a fill
permit. This criterion is not applicable to the project.
2. That, pursuant to Town Code Section 270-217.E, the Planning Board hereby finds that
the plan adequately protects the property and surrounding properties from significant
adverse consequences of such deposit or removal, including, when completed, adverse
drainage, erosion, visual or other adverse impacts, taking into account the distance of the
operation from neighboring property and public ways, the possible detriment of such use
to the future development of the land in question, and significant nuisance or detriment of
the operation to neighboring landowners and to the community as a whole, and
3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed Stone Quarry
Road Driveway Extension, with the following conditions:
a. All Town of Ithaca Engineering Department comments listed in the Engineering
Memorandum, written by Joe Slater, Director of Public Works and Justin McNeal,
Civil Engineer, dated September 19th, 2024, must be addressed prior to any Land
Development Activity (Per Town Code § 228- 5).
Moved: Liz Bageant Seconded: Bill Arms
Vote: ayes- Wilcox, Cameron, Kaufman, Arms, Reynolds, Stewart & Bageant
Pg. 5
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
2. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a personal
wireless service facility located at 111 Wiedmaier Court, off Slaterville Road/NYS Route
79. The proposal involves the construction of a 138' +/- monopole tower with 9 antennas, two
equipment cabinets, a generator, and other equipment within a 50' x 50' +/- chain link fenced
area. S. Roberts WC Land, LLC, Owner; Verizon Wireless, Applicant; Jared C. Lusk, Nixon
Peabody, LLP, Agent
Mr. Wilcox said that Ms. Brock, Attorney for the Town, had a brief statement to make to keep us
on track.
Ms. Brock stated that the Board has seen information about the appropriate legal standards from
both the applicant and the Town consultant in his report. She advised the Board to just follow
what the Town Code requires for this project. She extensively researched the law and the
provisions in the Town Code meet all legal standards. The Board only needs to consider the
things the law tells them to consider and make the findings the law tells them to make.
Ms. Bageant asked if they could go through the bullet points of Town Code 270-219 (R)2 A & B
in terms of standards.
Ms. Balestra noted that they are in the draft resolution for ease of reference.
Mrs. Brock added that there is another legal standard the Board and public should be aware of as
some comments that have been submitted have touched on a topic that the Board cannot
consider. She explained that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 imposes rules on
municipalities as to what they can and cannot do, and one of the limitations is that they may not
regulate placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities based on
the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply
with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions. The Courts have said that the word
“environmental” effects include health effects. There is no doubt about that interpretation,
meaning the Board cannot consider the health effects of this facility if it meets the FCC’s
requirements.
Overview (Muffled audio)
Mr. Lusk introduced his team present.
Mr. Lusk noted that they gave certification of being compliant with the FCC’s standards that was
reviewed by the Town’s consultant.
He gave a summary of the area between South Hill and East Hill where there are gaps in cellular
coverage and excessive cell traffic demands, the location of the proposed cell tower and the
history of the property prior to the current owner.
Mr. Lusk reviewed the documentation showing the need for the tower to improve service area
and the height necessary.
Pg. 6
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
The location is in a cleared area that was associated with a previous site plan development and
the current owner was not aware of nor should she be held responsible for issues that she was not
responsible for.
He went through the submitted plan details of the tower itself and associated equipment.
Questions
Mr. Wilcox noted that the materials are voluminous. Members said it was hard to navigate to
particular exhibits that are being discussed.
Ms. Bageant noted that Exhibit H shows a comprehensive layout for the requested location, but
the analysis of the other locations is not sufficient, just stating that they are unsuitable.
Mr. Sharif gave his credentials and shared screens showing maps of the 5 different areas that
were considered for the cell tower and computer simulations of what coverage is like at each of
them.
Out of the five locations, the proposed location is the only one that shows good coverage for
Route 79 and the surrounding residential areas.
Ms. Balestra said that she did research the five chosen sites. One of the sites was Six Mile Creek
Vineyard which is a location the town staff does not recommend, one of the sites is in the Town
of Dryden adjacent to the east, and the remaining sites are immediately across the street of the
proposed location, on a residential property with a home and another behind a home with a
significant slope.
Ms. Bageant asked if Mr. Sharif could explain why the location at a lower elevation is better than
a location that is at a higher elevation.
Mr. Sharif responded that the best service is under 1K feet of ground elevation. This is a
difficult area because of the elevations. The proposed location keeps the service under the 1K
elevation of the surrounding areas that need the coverage. The other locations bring us above that
elevation and service is not improved for the area.
Ms. Randall noted that she heard the applicant state that the current owner and Verizon were not
aware of any prior restrictions on the property (Mr. Lusk nodded in the affirmative) and she said
there was a declaration of restrictions on the property filed with the County Clerk on April 23,
2010, and she was surprised the design team was not aware of that.
Mr. Morgan responded that they are aware of those restrictions and that is why the proposed
location of the tower is at the one spot on the property, an “island spot” where anything could be
built.
The current owner was not aware of the violations in the clear cutting of trees and soil.
Pg. 7
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Ms. Bageant asked what the goal was for this evening and how much time the Board has to
absorb and consider this information.
Ms. Balestra went through the application timeline and the “shot clock” associated with it. After
some starts and stops for receipt of requests/necessary materials, the 150-day clock is up at the
end of November, unless the Board and the Applicant agree to extend it.
Mr. Wilcox asked what they mean about “demand” and what that means. Is that voice, data,
calls, texts?
Mr. Sharif explained that data is now all of that combined, games, calls, texts, etc. are all data.
Mr. Wilcox stated for the record that based on the information provided here, where he lives, he
would benefit from the tower, but he does not see that as a reason to recuse himself.
Ms. Cameron asked about the Declaration of Restrictions. There are discrepancies regarding the
specific conditions on the ground, as far as trees, plantings, required trees that were planted, and
then elsewhere it is referred to as a grassy area.
Ms. Randall explained the history of the 2003 approved subdivision. The previous owners
clearcut the hillside and moved a considerable amount of soil that was not in compliance with the
approved subdivision. This resulted in a big erosion problem and the DEC was notified and took
over from there.
The DEC led the enforcement of a stabilizing plan, under their oversight, including the planting
of 250 trees in 2008. The trees were required to maintain a 95% survival rate for 5 years. The
Town monitored that part of the stabilization plan and in 2013 stated the condition had been met.
Mr. Wilcox added that the Planning Board has no enforcement arm. The previous owner did
something that was not permitted in the stormwater pollution and prevention plan. We did the
best we could by requiring stabilization of the site after the fact.
Ms. Cameron said that she wanted to be on the record to make it clear that no aspect of this
project includes removing any more trees or altering or making that stormwater management any
worse.
Mr. O’Shea said there is no disturbance zone in the proposal. They are proposing some minor
changes in grade with the driveway and the pad, but Engineering does not see any issues with
those minor changes, and they are not proposing anything in the no disturbance area, and they
are following all requirements of their SPEDES permit.
Ms. Reynolds asked if the area was zoned Conservation at the time of the major disturbance of
land.
Pg. 8
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wilcox summarized, saying the area is Conservation Zone and as part of the subdivision and
following remediation, there were additional constraints put on the subdivision to include the
remediated area as a “no disturbance area” placed upon this specific subdivided property.
Discussion followed on allowed uses and preferential locations for telecommunications.
Mr. Arms asked about the additional landscaping that was proposed.
Ms. Balestra replied that the applicant is not proposing additional landscaping and if the purpose
is to screen the tower, that would take 50 years to have an impact on screening the tower itself,
but if it is to screen accessory structures of the tower, that could be possible. The site is not
further compromised by this proposal.
Ms. Bageant stated that she lives near a cell tower. It is important that the ancillary equipment is
shielded, but, that equipment can change over time, especially as co-locations are added, so they
are not trivial. She said the generator near her is quiet, so she supports their statements about
that.
The access tower near her is curved, so visibility is less, this site is a straight shot with limited
screening opportunities, especially with the no disturbance area, and the applicant might consider
shifting it slightly to mitigate that straight shot access.
Ms. Kaufman agreed, saying that she visited the site, and she was somewhat disappointed that it
is a straight shot to the site.
Mr. Wilcox said that used to be a dirt road, and that has grown up a bit, but some screening
might be appropriate.
Ms. Bageant said she would like to see a landscaping plan for this project.
Ms. Kaufman asked if having the access driveway to the tower off of Burns Road rather than
through the residential area.
Mr. Morgan responded that the area surrounding the tower site is in the restricted area and
surrounds the location of the tower except for that existing access road on Wedemeyer Court.
Ms. Balestra added that there is a very steep slope there, existing mature trees, and required
stormwater retention ponds. Town staff strongly suggests that no additional tree cutting is
considered.
Discussion followed with elevation and slopes shown and the City properties that surround the
property as a whole.
Moving the access road line conforms to the existing boundary of the no disturbance area, with
not a lot, if any, wiggle room.
Pg. 9
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wilcox added that the original road that was planned was the same straight shot and there
were no concerns raised then.
Ms. Randall added that the hilltop was essentially leveled off, and the DEC set these restrictive
covenants, and she wasn’t sure how easily that could be modified, and it is a platted subdivision
with associated deeds.
She added that there is an angle to Weidmaier Road as you enter off of Slaterville Road, not a
completely straight shot off the highway.
Discussion continued on landscaping and gating options. Asking for a landscaping plan can be
part of the preliminary approval as a condition prior to final approval.
Ms. Cameron asked about the electrical usage of a tower of this size and the applicant responded
that it is similar to a residential house.
Mr. Wilcox stated that the legal requirement is for a public hearing after the SEQR
determination, as that determination makes the application complete. He is always open to
hearing comments prior to SEQR, but the legal public hearing is after the SEQR determination.
Ms. Brock noted that the Town Code requires the applicant to show that there is a compelling
need to address any significant gaps in the personal wireless services. The Town Code defines
personal wireless services the same way the Telecommunications Act and the Second Circuit
Court has defined it, which is “the ability of wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls
to and from landlines that are connected to the national telephone network.”
Speaking to the applicant, Ms. Brock stated “In the exhibits you've given us to show need, you
talk about a lack of capacity and need for better service for both voice and data. What we really
need to see, because our Town Board very specifically restricted this to the requirement that the
need be shown for wireless telephones to make and receive voice calls to and from landlines that
are connected to the national telephone network, and that is not what you have shown.”
Ms. Brock asked if the Applicant’s engineer can answer to what extent some of these exhibits
might need to be revised to show the specified need and not just the lack of capacity for data and
things like that.
Inaudible responses. From notes – voice calls use the same system, so increased voice and data
loads affect the same.
Ms. Brock asked if the propagation maps could show just calls and not data.
Mr. Lusk responded that they are showing coverage, there is no delineation of calls or data. If
signal strength or signal quality is poor, it is bad for both calls and data.
Ms. Brock asked for verification that the drop call data is for voice calls and it's not somebody
trying to connect for data purposes.
Pg. 10
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wasif confirmed that is correct, stating “The data we provide for a dropped call is for voice
data, a voice call. Drive test data is also not specific to call or data usage. They are showing you
the signal strength and quality. You can’t make a good call without both.”
Ms. Reynolds asked about the Telecommunications Act of 1995 , expressing that the law was
enacted over 25 years ago. Ms. Brock responded that it has not been updated and it is up to
Congress to do that, but the Town decided to follow that standard.
Ms. Reynolds continued, saying that there is no way to tease the two apart at this point in
technology. Ms. Brock responded that the Town Board has set the law and you have to apply the
law that they've set. They've made a policy decision that they want to impose a high bar for
telecommunications or personal wireless service providers to show need because they don't want
what in their view is an unnecessary proliferation of these facilities.
Mr. Wilcox added that this is the first learning example of the lack of discretion we have.
Opportunity for the public to speak. (Again, audio was horrible)
(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.)
Mr. Wilcox stated for the benefit of the public: “We as the Planning Board have not completed
the environmental review. If we were to make a negative determination of potential
significant environmental impact, we would then move on to the legally required public hearing.
Since we haven't gotten to that point, we are not holding the legally required public hearing but
what we will do is give everybody here a chance to speak. We ask you to keep your comments
brief and to the point because that will benefit everybody who is still attending this meeting and
paying attention.”
James Hamilton spoke about the devastation of the property by the previous owners and the
remediation efforts. He said there are not 250 trees, and you can tell that from the satellite views.
He wanted efforts to honor the nature of the Conservation Zone here held to. He would like to
see the area remediated to the natural state it was in.
Gentleman – hold them to the strictness of the Town Law.
Unknown Lady – said she has lived in the area for 4 years and there were gaps, but she hasn’t
experienced any lately. She said she is concerned about the heavy emissions and the FCC
standards are junk, and she got really sick living near some high towers.
Mr. Wilcox stated that a lot of the written comments refer to the proposal not meeting our current
Code etc. They mention exposure levels and radiation levels, but don’t cite a specific violation of
our Code. He asked staff if there was any Code requirement the proposal does not meet.
Pg. 11
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Ms. Balestra responded that is does not meet our height restrictions, but it meets everything else.
Ms. Brock reiterated that as long as they comply with the levels that the FCC has set for
exposure to radiofrequency emissions, the Board cannot base their decision on the perceived
health impact of that exposure. The Applicants have provided a certification and report saying
that they meet those FCC requirements.
Molly Kornblum – asked that the application be denied because it is too close to homes and
apartments and there is no evidence from an independent report that there are dropped calls and
that should be analyzed by an independent source. She also referenced a number of health
concerns.
Andrew Molinar spoke, saying that he suffers from affects of cell radiation and cannot sleep at
his parents’ house because it is within 1,000 feet of a tower. He cited numerous studies showing
harmful health effects from towers and internal communications showing Verizon themselves
know there are significant health effects. (Multiple written comments submitted)
Marie Skwier spoke, thanking the Board for looking at this carefully. She was concerned about
the time spent on the citing and screening and the only concern should be determining whether
there is a lack of coverage for voice calls.
We spent a lot of time crafting a law that restricted the proliferation of cell towers to allow for
voice calls. She believes there should be an independent study showing gaps in voice calls and
then if it is determined, then the options on the least cell tower we need. The least intrusive to
cover that gap. Get to that need before wasting time on aesthetics.
She then stated that there is the aesthetic aspect which the Board can use to deny the application.
This is a natural area and recreation area.
Brian spoke, saying his thoughts were on whether this is needed and if the drive test data is
valid. He supported the other comments regarding looking into the legitimate need to
specifically address what the Code says it should address.
Daniel Seib spoke, saying he lives about 500 feet from the location and he and his family have
concerns about the viewshed and environmental impacts. He doesn’t know much about the
health aspects, but it would affect their view.
Marilee Murphy spoke, saying he lives about half a mile away and he has never had a problem
with cell service or a problem with dropping calls in the area.
Mr. Wilcox thanked them for their comments and reiterated that commenting tonight did not
remove their ability to comment during the public hearing.
Discussion
Ms. Brock wanted to comment on the Consultants’ report before moving on.
Pg. 12
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Ms. Brock said that the Consultant put in a lot of legal information that was not in the scope of
work into the report, and she would like all of that pulled out of his report. He was to be looking
at the need for the project and I would like him to use the wording the standards in the Town
Code to tell us whether, in his opinion, the applicant has met the showing of need and go back to
that wording, “Compelling need to address any significant gaps in the applicant's personal
wireless services...” Define, as I've described it “…through the proposed facilities and not
through any other solution…”
I would like him to draw his conclusions, using the standards that are in the in the Code. Our
Code says, “to determine whether a gap is significant,” and it tells you what you look at, and
what to write a report based upon. The Code says “voice” and that is what should be looked at.
Mr. Arms responded, saying that people consider it communication, not just “voice”
communications. Ms. Brock said that is what you have to do, that is what our Code says.
Mr. Lusk asked where that was, specifically, in the Code.
Ms. Brock responded that it is in the Definitions section, and in Section R, Findings, Purpose,
and more. She added that we had talked about this before.
Discussion followed on where “voice calls” was in the Code.
Ms. Kaufman said she would still like a better explanation about why such a large singular tower
is needed as opposed to smaller, maybe more numerous towers would address the gap.
Discussion followed on the possibilities of various sizes and locations.
Ms. Balestra listed what the Board wanted to see to make a determination on SEQR:
1. Revised Consultant report
2. Show options for smaller, short towers instead of one tower
3. Landscaping plan
Members added that some people are expressing that they are not experiencing dropped calls and
how would we ascertain that? Do we want to get an independent report?
Ms. Randall said the intention is to give these questions to our Consultant, who will review their
report and attend the next meeting and provide answers to your questions on the report.
Mr. Wilcox asked if the parcel was a buildable lot and the response was yes, it could have a
house or a house with an accessory dwelling unit. There are environmental impacts to that type
of build out also.
Mr. Lusk spoke but it was inaudible. Mr. Wilcox was asked to paraphrase what he said.
Pg. 13
PB 2024-10-01 (Filed 10/29)
Mr. Wilcox said Mr. Lusk was talking about the cost of the Consultant report, which they are
paying for, and what the Board was asking for may be outside what they should be paying for.
Mr. Wilcox said the report clearly says “preliminary” and the next step is to provide these
questions so a final report can be produced by the Consultant.
SEQR Determination: Personal Wireless Service Facility (Tower) – 111 Wiedmaier
Court – Site Plan Approval & Special Permit.
4. Other Business
Ms. Randall brought up the request for the Planning Board to move their meeting from election
night to another night.
Discussion followed with the question of the members’ ability to attend and sufficient time for
materials that were requested to be ready.
Motion made to reschedule the November 5th meeting to October 29th to accommodate early
voting at Town Hall. Moved by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous.
5. Persons to be Heard – None
6. Approval of Minutes – Motion made by Mr. Wilcox to approve the minutes of August 6,
2024, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous.
7. Next Agenda – Possible items reviewed.
Meeting adjourned upon motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Bageant, unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
October 15, 2024
Draft MINUTES
Present: Fred Wilcox, Chair; Cindy Kaufman (virtual), Caitlin Cameron, Liz Bageant, Bill Arms, and
Gary Stewart. Absent Kelda McGurk and Sara Reynolds
CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Christine Balestra, Senior Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner; Susan
Brock, Attorney for the Town, David O’Shea, Director of Engineering, Justin McNeal, Senior Civil
Engineer, Emily Rodgers, Civil Engineer, Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Enforcement Officer; Paulette
Rosa, Town Clerk.
Mr. Wilcox opened the meeting at 6:30p.m.
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreational
Facility, located at Robison Alumni Fields on Tower Road on the Cornell University central
campus. The project involves replacing the Robison Alumni Fields with a 90,000+/- square
foot, 56-foot-tall indoor fieldhouse building and a new synthetic outdoor field hockey field
along with new sidewalks and pedestrian connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping,
lighting, and other site improvements. The majority of the project is located within the City
of Ithaca with a small portion in the Town of Ithaca. This is a Type I Action under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act for which the City of Ithaca Planning and Development
Board acting as lead agency issued a negative determination of environmental significance
on September 3, 2024. Cornell University, Owner; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher
Associates Landscape Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent.
Kimberly Michaels gave a presentation on the site plan.
• New one acre open space free play area.
• Building and site materials diagram and list were shown and detailed, including bicycle
racks, seating/benches and lights. There are two existing light poles that are being kept
but not used for lighting to allow the nesting of hawks that have habitually made their
homes there.
• Pedestrian and athletic field lighting specifications were shown and detailed.
• Planting plans were shown with a 42-tree net gain and a mixture of trees, shrubs, and
ground cover being used.
• Building materials consist of a mid-tone gray metal, highly reflective, and a grey brick
face with bird-friendly glass. Examples of the materials were handed to the board.
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 2
• The goal was to make a very large building welcoming, and the glazing and the origami
features have done that, with sections reflecting back the open space. Different view
angles were shown depicting the building and surrounding green spaces. The depictions
also had day and night views of the building.
• Ms. Michaels indicated the corner of the building and portion of the outdoor field and
landscaping that was in the Town of Ithaca.
Questions from the Board:
Mr. Wilcox asked if fire access was signed off on by the Ithaca Fire Department.
Ms. Brock noted that Mr. Moseley, as Director of Code Enforcement, has jurisdiction over that
aspect of the plan and the applicants have worked with him and it would be part of the building
permit process as well.
Ms. Kaufman verified that the mechanical components would not be on the roof and not visible
and then asked about the type of artificial turf that is now being proposed as it seems to have
been changed and was a controversial topic.
Ms. Michaels responded that they have been working hard at finding the most sustainable and
cutting edge artificial turf and the commitment is to meet current State law and using plant-based
infill in the exterior field. They will continue to work to find the best available and newest
materials that will address the concerns that have been raised.
She said that the inside field is still crumb rubber because natural fill creates a lot of dust and that
is an air-quality issue.
Ms. Bageant asked about the new one acre open space and if there is drainage infrastructure
there.
Mr. Herrick responded that the area is slightly depressed and drains to the proposed stormwater
management system, but it is not part of the drainage infrastructure there.
Mr. O’Shea added that the Town has reviewed the plans and had only two minor comments and
they are working with Mr. Herrick on those comments.
Public Hearing – Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak
and the hearing was closed.
(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.)
Ms. Bageant said the project looks great.
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 3
Determination
PB RESOLUTION 2024-020: Preliminary & Final Site Plan, Special Permit
Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2
Planning Board, October 15, 2024
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and
Recreational Facility, located at Robison Alumni Fields on Tower Road on the Cornell
University central campus. The project involves replacing the Robison Alumni Fields
with a 90,000+/- square foot, 56-foot-tall indoor fieldhouse building and a new
synthetic outdoor field hockey field along with new sidewalks and pedestrian
connections, stormwater facilities, landscaping, lighting, and other site improvements.
Cornell University, Owner; Kimberly Michaels, TWM, a Fisher Associates Landscape
Architecture Studio, Applicant/Agent,
2. Approximately 80% of the Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Center
project is located within the City of Ithaca. The overall project area totals 7+/- acres,
with 5.8+/- acres in the City of Ithaca (including the proposed outdoor synthetic turf
field hockey field, approximately 74,000+/- square feet of the proposed fieldhouse
building, most of the proposed paving, landscaping, lighting and stormwater
management facilities) and 1.2+/- acres in the Town of Ithaca (including
approximately 16,000+/- square feet of the proposed fieldhouse building, some
paving, landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities),
3. The project is a Type I action under the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act (6 NYCRR Part 617), for which the City of Ithaca Planning and
Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, issued a negative determination of
environmental significance on September 3, 2024,
4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on October 15, 2024,
reviewed, and accepted as adequate a Basic Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan,
along with an application submission titled “Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and
Recreation Facility, Site Plan Review Materials Submission,” prepared by Fisher
Associates and dated September 20, 2024; said materials were supplemental to
previously-submitted application materials and drawings dated December 15, 2023,
April 19, 2024, and June 10, 2024, and other application materials, and
5. Project plans, and related information, were duly delivered to the Tompkins County
Planning and Sustainability Department per New York State General Municipal Law
§§239-l et seq., and such Department responded in a January 16, 2024, letter from
Katherine Borgella, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, pursuant to §§239-l,
-m, and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law, determining that the
proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact;
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 4
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-
200, Subsections A – H, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that:
A. The project will be suitable for the property on which it is proposed, considering the property’s
size, location, and physical site characteristics.
• The project is located on the Cornell University campus and will be constructed over two
existing sports fields. The property’s size, location, and physical site characteristics can
accommodate a fieldhouse building and associated amenities.
B. The proposed structure design and site layout are compatible with the surrounding area.
• The structure design is modern and will be located among other modern and historic
structures on the Cornell University central campus. The structure and site layout are
compatible with the surrounding college campus area.
C. Operations in connection with the proposed use do not create any more noise, fumes, vibration,
illumination, or other potential nuisances than the operation of any permitted use in the zone.
• The proposed project will produce temporary noise, vibration, and other nuisances associated
with construction. Such nuisances will cease upon completion of the project. Proposed
illumination will comply with the Town Outdoor Lighting Law (Town Code, Chapter 173).
D. Community infrastructure and services, such as police, fire and other protective services,
roadways, schools, and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed use.
• The proposal is largely located within the City of Ithaca, which contains its own community
infrastructure and services. The services in the Town of Ithaca portion of the project are of
adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
E. The proposed use, structure design, and site layout will comply with all the provisions of the
Town Code and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, except where the Zoning Board of
Appeals are considering area variances/appeals.
F. The site layout, with proposed vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access, traffic circulation, and
parking and loading facilities, is sufficient for the proposed use and is safely designed for
emergency vehicles.
• The small portion of the site layout that will be in the Town of Ithaca includes a widened
walkway that is specifically designed to accommodate multiple modes of transportation,
including emergency vehicles.
G. The project includes sufficient landscaping and/or other forms of buffering to protect surrounding
land uses. Existing vegetation is preserved to the extent possible.
• The surrounding land uses are college campus uses, which are the same as the proposed use.
Most of the tree loss associated with the project will occur in the City of Ithaca. The
fieldhouse building will be constructed over an existing disturbed site. The project includes a
robust and sufficient landscaping plan surrounding the building and site.
H. To the extent deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with
all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Chapter 270, Zoning.
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 5
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility, as
described in the materials listed in Whereas #4 above, subject to the following conditions:
a. Before issuance of a building permit, receipt of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board
of Appeals,
b. Before issuance of a building permit, and per the memo written by David O’Shea, Emily
Rodgers, and Justin McNeal, Town of Ithaca Engineering Department, dated October 4, 2024,
revision of the SWPPP Volume 1 narrative to include the following additional comment:
“If any fill sites are located within a designated MS4, the MS4 must approve the site and
sign onto the SWPPP as an additional MS4,”
c. Before issuance of a building permit, and per the memo written by David O’Shea, Emily
Rodgers, and Justin McNeal, Town of Ithaca Engineering Department, dated October 4, 2024,
addition of winter stabilization procedures and specifications to the construction drawings, in
accordance with the Construction General Permit and the NYS Standards and Specifications for
Erosion and Sediment Control, and
d. Before issuance of a building permit, submission of a fully executed (signed) Agreement
Between the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca for Building Permitting, Inspection,
and Related Services for the Cornell University Meinig Fieldhouse Project, which must
specify responsibility for all building permits, certificates of occupancy, certificates of
compliance, and all code-related inspections.
Moved: Liz Bageant Seconded: Bill Arms
Vote: ayes – Bageant, Arms, Wilcox, Kaufman, Cameron, and Stewart
2. Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed
Maplewood Phase II Planned Development Zone (PDZ), associated with the Maplewood
Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate Student
Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning
from Multiple Residence and High Density Residential Zones to a PDZ, involves
consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing
615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The
project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and
pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The
rezoning is a Type I Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject
to environmental review. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham
Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent.
Michele Palmer said they did not have a presentation per se, but did have the Planned
Development Zone draft available to show and discuss as well as the site plan materials.
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 6
Ms. Cameron said she noticed a use that was not defined (garden market), and she was curious
what that is and whether it should be defined.
Ms. Palmer said the term is probably a holdover from Maplewood I PDZ and was probably left
for flexibility to allow it if someone wanted it, but they had no issue with removing it.
Ms. Brock said it is defined in Maplewood I and can be added.
Ms. Cameron asked if there were concerns about the parking ratios, looking at the potential of
some of these uses that may bring outside vehicles. She asked the applicant how they are
accounting for that vagueness.
Ms. Palmer said the intention would be that those uses are for the residents, and although not
impossible, that is not the intention.
Ms. Cameron asked about the car share option and there is a conversation about bringing in a car
share option, and in other communities there is a credit for say, six spots, for car share use.
Ms. Palmer said she did not think that it was necessary at this point, but Greystar is entering into
an MOU with a car-share and bike-share program and felt the PDZ was not restrictive in this
aspect, so she did not feel it was necessary to look for credits.
Mr. Wilcox added that Maplewood I was shown to have a little too much parking, so this is
working off that.
Mr. Arms asked what the car to unit ratio was in Maplewood I and spaces are numbered; are
there spaces for visitors.
Ms. Palmer said it was conceived as a numbered system, but that didn’t work, and people with
permits can park where they would like.
Mr. Arms said he has never seen parking full. He asked about retail shops that seem lacking, and
he is in favor of the project, but thinks some retail might be good.
Mr. Jacob von Mechow showed the parking diagram and the public parking areas which are
intended to take some of the street parking on Maple Ave and bring it into the development. He
also showed the loading zones and car share spots.
Mr. Arms asked about the water tower and jurisdiction.
Mr. von Mechow said the City of Ithaca owns the property and has agreed to let us put a fence
up. The applicant team is collaborating with the City on some aspects of that.
Mr. Wilcox asked about the arrows on the street near the water tower and if that is the direction
of traffic around the tower which depicts two-way and one-way.
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 7
Mr. von Mechow responded that based on the traffic study, there were some concerns about the
street access there and it was suggested that that portion be an entrance only.
Ms. Palmer said there is a sidewalk there and there is an existing bus stop and TCAT is willing to
talk about putting the bus stop back where there was one at the now vacant apartment complex.
Ms. Randall said that Maplewood I had some built in flexibility for retail and 5,000 sqft
cumulative was suggested to the Planning Committee for focused retail.
Ms. Bageant asked about the total dwelling units that were finalized.
Ms. Palmer said there are 615 and 20% are 2-bedroom and we are asking for some flexibility in
the PDZ as we get closer to final plans.
Ms. Bageant said the PDZ language is very set, and she wondered if that was too restrictive.
Ms. Randall said the origin of that was to know the mix, and it may change.
Ms. Brock has suggested a range with a hard number in total.
Ms. Brock turned to parking spaces, and the draft has flexibility that could be interpreted as zero
parking spaces and she suggested that there be a range, with a minimum. She quoted the
Maplewood I vs proposed parking ratios, which are considerably lower than Maplewood I.
She added that the bicycle parking allocation is very large.
Ms. Palmer said there are six spaces but also a lot of covered bike storage being provided so that
number is high because there is outdoor space at each building and then the bike share locations.
Ms. Cameron said there should be a minimum amount of bike parking provided.
Discussion followed on how to look at the impacts of any ranges and pay attention to the
extremes of either end.
Mike Kavanagh, Greystar, said 75 parking spots would be the minimum in his mind.
Ms. Bageant asked if the bike storage units could be used for anything else or would it be
permitted and controlled.
Mr. Kavanagh said there is no charge for bike storage and residents would be given a lock or
pass code and it is a glass unit and storage of other things would not be allowed.
Mr. Wilcox asked about the process. The Planning Board wants to be lead agency for SEQR and
he asked if that would be for both the PDZ and the project?
Ms. Balestra responded that it would be both.
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 8
Mr. Arms asked about the term “community” and what that means and asked if the public would
be permitted to use the open space.
Ms. Palmer said it is meant to be the residents of Maplewood I and II and the public is absolutely
welcome to use the open space and trails.
Some discussion followed on what is and isn’t public access and making that very clear in the
language.
Mr. Arms said the Planning Committee did a great job on this.
Mr. Weinberg asked if the Board was comfortable with the word “approximately” regarding the
number of parking spaces and if they can agree on a range, then all the “approximately”
references can be removed.
Mr. Wilcox noted that this Board does not make that determination, that is the Town Board’s
decision when establishing the Planned Development Zone.
3. Persons to be heard
Resident spoke about the proposed Verizon tower, saying that she and her family recently moved
here and one of the reasons was the Town’s strong environmental stance and she was not told
about this proposed project in time to speak at the last meeting. She said she spoke to many of
her neighbors who also said they did not receive any notification of the proposal.
She said that she is an acupuncturist and believes in science and there is a lot of radiation that
comes off of these towers and there are a lot of studies out there about the dangers of that.
She said she doesn’t want that in her backyard and her children playing around it and she is
shocked that the Town of Ithaca is even considering this.
She questioned the location and the need for the tower and urged the Town to look at the studies
that are out there.
Mr. Wilcox responded that there is no responsibility for the Town to send out a letter, it is up to
the public to stay informed about projects in the Town. Notification is done as a courtesy to
property owners within 500 feet of a proposal.
Secondly, you cannot argue about health impacts if they are meeting the Federal standards for
emissions, that is Federal law that we are bound to follow.
The resident said their own proposal stated that it could cause harm, and why is that not
addressed.
Mr. Wilcox responded that we are aware that people are concerned.
PB 2024-10-15 (Filed 11/8) 9
Ms. Brock asked if notifications were sent and Ms. Randall responded that they were, but they
are sent to property owners, and many of the properties adjacent to the proposed tower are
owned by the same person.
The resident said that her comment was not a personal attack on the Town or the Board, but she
thought the applicant was required to do so.
Ms. Brock added that the applicant will be required to prove they meet the Federal standards for
emissions and do so each year.
Ms. Bageant added that the meetings are posted to the Town’s YouTube Live Meetings site if the
resident wanted to see what was discussed at the other meetings. Staff noted that all application
materials that have been submitted are on the Town’s website.
4. Approval of Minutes – None
5. Other - The next agenda was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned upon a motion by Mr. Wilcox, seconded by Ms. Kaufman,
unanimous.
Submitted by
Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk
1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
215 N. Tioga St 14850
607.273.1747
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
TO: Planning Board Members
FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner
DATE: December 10, 2024
RE: Cornell University Maplewood Phase II Project – SEQR Determination &
Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Proposed Planned Development Zone
Enclosed please find the following additional materials associated with the Maplewood Phase II
development project:
1. Draft SEQR resolution
2. Revised draft Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Parts 1-3
3. Draft resolution to the Town Board recommending rezoning from MR/HDR to PDZ
4. Revised draft Maplewood Phase II rezoning PDZ language
5. Revised applicant narrative and drawings, dated 11-15-24
6. Additional revised applicant narrative and drawings, dated 12-9-24
7. Two sheets depicting bicycle storage that were presented to the board on 10-15-24
SEQR
The Planning Board, as the Lead Agency in the environmental review of the Maplewood Phase II
project, began a discussion of potential environmental impacts at their meeting on September 17,
2024. The Board reviewed a FEAF Part 1 at that meeting (submitted by the applicant) along with draft
FEAF Parts 2 and 3 (prepared by Planning staff). Staff highlighted sections of the draft FEAF Part 3 to
indicate where more information or additional discussion was needed.
The Planning Board provided feedback to staff and the applicant at the 9-17-24 meeting. All questions
and highlighted sections from the previous draft FEAF have since been resolved. The attached revised
draft FEAF Parts 1-3 contains new red-lined sections to indicate the changes that have been made
between the 9-17-24 version and the current version.
Site Plan Revisions
Some plan sheets that were submitted and previously reviewed by the Planning Board have been
revised, based on applicant discussions with the Town’s Code Enforcement and Engineering
Departments. The landscaping, site layout, and grading/drainage plans, along with the SWPPP, and
the FEAF have been revised to reflect mostly minor revisions to the site layout (e.g., buildings have
been shifted a few feet to accommodate Fire Code requirements). The only significant revision is the
widening of the proposed walkway between the main parking lots/thoroughfares. The walkway, as
previously presented, was not wide enough to comply with NYS Fire Code provisions. Rather than
2
seek a NYS variance, the applicants decided to widen the walkway to comply with code. Based on the
modifications, the number of parking spaces has been reduced to 155 (from 161), and there are
minor changes to the fire access plans. However, there are no changes to the project that would
preclude the Planning Board from making an environmental determination.
Rezoning/PDZ Request
The Board reviewed the draft rezoning (PDZ) language for the project at their meeting on October 15,
2024. This document has also been revised since the last meeting. The attached version contains
revisions that reflect the Board’s comments from 10-15-24 Planning Board meeting; Attorney for the
Town comments; and applicant responses to the Board’s suggestions from the 10-15-24 meeting. The
Board/Attorney comments are red-lined; and the applicant responses are blue-lined (this is
highlighted in the header of the document).
The purpose of the December 17th meeting is for the Planning Board to:
1. Consider making a SEQR determination for the Maplewood Phase II project, and
2. Consider recommending the rezoning language to the Town Board. As discussed at the
October 15th Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing before
making their recommendation (per Town Code, §270-181(F)). Please note there is no public
hearing on SEQR; rather it is on the recommendation to the Town Board regarding the
rezoning request.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions regarding this proposal by phone at (607) 273-
1721, extension 121, or by email at cbalestra@townithacany.gov.
Cc: Michele Palmer, Senior Associate, Whitham Planning & Design, PLLC
Leslie Schill, University Planner & Director of Campus Planning, Cornell University
Jeremy Thomas, Senior Director of Real Estate, Cornell University
Scott Whitham, Principal, Whitham Planning & Design, PLLC
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: SEQR
Maplewood Phase II Project
Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5,
63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, and 63.-2-7.3
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
December 17, 2024
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of a Determination of Environmental Significance for the
Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood
Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which
requires a rezoning from Multiple Residence and High-Density Residential Zones to a
Planned Development Zone (PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing
six (6) five-story apartment buildings, containing 615 units/800 beds in studio, one
bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated
amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces,
stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant;
Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape Architecture, PLLC, Agent,
2. The proposed project, which requires Site Plan approval and Special Permit by the Town
of Ithaca Planning Board and a rezoning to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ) by the
Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Parts 617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii), respectively, as well as
Town of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Code section 148-5B(2) as the project as
proposed involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential units
(30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public
water and sewage systems,
3. The Planning Board, at its meeting on August 6, 2024, proposed to establish itself as
Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the project, and on August 7,
2024, notified potential Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead
Agency,
4. The Planning Board, at its meeting on September 17, 2024, established itself as Lead
Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the project, after having received no
objections from other involved agencies,
5. The Planning Board, at its meeting on December 17, 2024, has reviewed application
materials, studies, and a narrative plan set dated 07-19-2024, titled “Maplewood Phase II
Preliminary Site Plan Submission,” submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape
Architecture, PLLC; supplemental materials and drawings dated 08-26-2024, submitted
by Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; revised materials and
drawings, dated 11-15-24, submitted by Whitham Planning Design Landscape
Architecture, PLLC; additional materials and drawings, dated 12-9-24, submitted by
Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC; revised draft PDZ rezoning
language labeled for 12-17-24 PB meeting; a completed Full Environmental Assessment
Form (FEAF) Part 1, prepared by the applicant; and a completed FEAF Parts 2 and 3
prepared by Town Planning staff, and
6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law
and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the Maplewood
Phase II development project, based on the information in the FEAF Part 1 and for the reasons
set forth in the FEAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required.
Name of Applicant/Sponsor:
Ryan Souls |Sr.Director,Development,Greystar
Telephone:843-579-9400
E-Mail:ryan.souls@greystar.com
Address:465 Meeting St.Ste 500
City/PO:Zip Code:State:Charleston SC 29403
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role ):
Michele Palmer,Senior Associate,Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture
Telephone:607-280-6916
E-Mail:palmer@whithamdesign.com
Address:
404 N Cayuga
City/PO:
Ithaca
State:Zip Code:
14850NY
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor ):
Jeremy Thomas,Senior Director of Real Estate,Cornell University
Telephone:607-266-7869
E-Mail:jt675@cornell.edu
Address:
15 Thornwoood Drive
City/PO:Zip Code:State:14850IthacaNY
Page 1 of 13
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist ,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either “Yes” or “No ”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the applicant or project sponsor to verify that the information
contained in Part lis accurate and complete .
A. Project and Applicant/Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Maplewood Phase II
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map ):
301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY, 14850
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need): The project is a stand alone expansion of the Maplewood student housing
community and is oriented toward Cornell graduate and professional students, similar to the residents of the adjacent community. The site is
approximately 9 acres and six five-story residential buildings are proposed that will house approximately 615 units with 800 beds, primarily studios and
one-bedroom apartments with a small percentage of two-bedroom. A one-story community center to serve residents will also be constructed.
Approximately 155+/- parking spaces are proposed. Greystar, the operator of Maplewood Phase I, is positioned to blend Maplewood Phase I and
Maplewood Phase II to create a larger Maplewood neighborhood which will share some services, including street connections, water service, and
outdoor amenity space.
Revised for 12-17-24 PB mtg
7/7/2024 (for all noted)
NYS DEC - lead agency concurrence 7/7/2024
Tompkins County Planning Department- GML 239, lead agency concurrence
Possible acceptance of utility extensions
2014 Town Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
Special Permit
However, the East Ithaca Recreation Trail serves the project site.
Project is technically considered new, with its own
review process and new PDZ language.
27*
*(Indicated in application)
9.71
9.27
57
Water Improvement Area
Sewer Improvement Area
*
*Town sewer mains exist, but will be reconstructed to better serve project.
-to centerline of Maple Ave
5.82
9.14
55
2.80
1.64
2.92
5.12
0.49
4.10
2.32
(1.15)
1.18
(2.35)
Project site includes MW2 + MW1 = 9.71 acres
20
Michele A Palmer 7/19/2024
Senior Associate
Whitham Planning Design Landscape Arcihtecture
DRAFTPage 1 of 10
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts
Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could
be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental
professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that
can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the
most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the
lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity.
If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding
with this assessment.
Tips for completing Part 2:
•Review all of the information provided in Part 1.
•Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook.
•Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2.
•If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section.
•If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question.
•Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact.
•Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency
checking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.”
•The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis.
•If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general
question and consult the workbook.
•When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole action@.
•Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts.
•Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project.
1.Impact on Land
Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, NO YES
the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is
less than 3 feet.E2d 9 9
b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater.E2f 9 9
c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, or
generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface.
E2a 9 9
d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons
of natural material.
D2a 9 9
e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year
or in multiple phases.
D1e 9 9
f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical
disturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides).
D2e, D2q 9 9
g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area.B1i 9 9
h. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9 9
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
Project :
Date :
FEAF 2019
PLEASE SEE PART 3 FOR ANY ITEM CHECKED "YES"-
Unchecked boxes are "No Impact"
Maplewood II Residential Development
4
4
4DRAFTDecember 17, 2024
Revised for 12/17/24 PB mtg
DRAFTPage 2 of 10
2.Impact on Geological Features
The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit
access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, NO YES
minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
E2g 9 9
b.The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a
registered National Natural Landmark.
Specific feature: _____________________________________________________
E3c 9 9
c.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9 9
3.Impacts on Surface Water
The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water NO YES
bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may create a new water body.D2b, D1h 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a
10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water.
D2b 9 9
c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material
from a wetland or water body.
D2a 9 9
d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or
tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body.
E2h 9 9
e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion,
runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments.
D2a, D2h 9 9
f.The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal
of water from surface water.
D2c 9 9
g.The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge
of wastewater to surface water(s).
D2d 9 9
h.The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of
stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving
water bodies.
D2e 9 9
i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or
downstream of the site of the proposed action.
E2h 9 9
j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or
around any water body.
D2q, E2h 9 9
k.The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing,
wastewater treatment facilities.
D1a, D2d 9
4
4
DRAFT
DRAFTPage 3 of 10
l. Other impacts: _______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
9 9
4.Impact on groundwater
The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or NO YES
may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer.
(See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand
on supplies from existing water supply wells.
D2c 9 9
b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable
withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer.
Cite Source: ________________________________________________________
D2c 9 9
c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and
sewer services.
D1a, D2c 9 9
d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.D2d, E2l 9 9
e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations
where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated.
D2c, E1f,
E1g, E1h
9 9
f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products
over ground water or an aquifer.
D2p, E2l 9 9
g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100
feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources.
E2h, D2q,
E2l, D2c
9 9
h. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
5.Impact on Flooding
The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. NO YES
(See Part 1. E.2)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway.E2i 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain.E2j 9 9
c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain.E2k 9 9
d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage
patterns.
D2b, D2e 9 9
e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding.D2b, E2i,
E2j, E2k
9 9
f.If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, is the dam in need of repair,
or upgrade?
E1e 9 9
4
4
4
DRAFTPage 4 of 10
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________ 9 9
6.Impacts on Air
NO YES The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source.
(See Part 1. D.2.f., D.2.h, D.2.g)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action may
also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels:
i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2)
ii.More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2O)
iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of
hydrochloroflourocarbons (HFCs) emissions
vi. 43 tons/year or more of methane
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2g
D2h
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated
hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous
air pollutants.
D2g 9 9
c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissions
rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heat
source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour.
D2f, D2g 9 9
d.The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a” through “c”,
above.
D2g 9 9
e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1
ton of refuse per hour.
D2s 9 9
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
7.Impact on Plants and Animals
The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) NO YES
If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any
threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federal
government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2o 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal
government.
E2o 9 9
c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of any
species of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or the
Federal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2p 9 9
d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by
any species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State or
the Federal government.
E2p 9 9
4
DRAFT
DRAFTPage 5 of 10
e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural
Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect.
E3c 9 9
f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any
portion of a designated significant natural community.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E2n 9 9
g.The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or
over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.E2m 9 9
h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest,
grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat.
Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
E1b 9 9
i.Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of
herbicides or pesticides.
D2q 9 9
j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
8.Impact on Agricultural Resources
The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) NO YES
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the
NYS Land Classification System.
E2c, E3b 9 9
b.The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land
(includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc).
E1a, Elb 9 9
c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of
active agricultural land.
E3b 9 9
d.The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural
uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10
acres if not within an Agricultural District.
E1b, E3a 9 9
e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land
management system.
El a, E1b 9 9
f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development
potential or pressure on farmland.
C2c, C3,
D2c, D2d
9 9
g.The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland
Protection Plan.
C2c 9 9
h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________9 9
4
4
Please See Part 3 DRAFT
DRAFTPage 6 of 10
9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources
The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in NO YES
sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and
a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local
scenic or aesthetic resource.
E3h 9 9
b.The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant
screening of one or more officially designated scenic views.
E3h, C2b 9 9
c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points:
i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons)
ii. Year round
E3h
9
9
9
9
d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed
action is:
i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work
ii. Recreational or tourism based activities
E3h
E2q,
E1c 9
9
9
9
e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and
appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource.
E3h 9 9
f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed
project:
0-1/2 mile
½ -3 mile
3-5 mile
5+ mile
D1a, E1a,
D1f, D1g
9 9
g.Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological NO YES
resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
E3e 9 9
b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory.
E3f 9 9
c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E3g 9 9
a.The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous
to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or
State Register of Historical Places, or that has been determined by the Commissioner
of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for
listing on the State Register of Historic Places.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
DRAFTPage 7 of 10
d. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
e.If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Moderate to large impact may
occur”, continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3:
i.The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part
of the site or property.
ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting or
integrity.
iii.The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which
are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting.
E3e, E3g,
E3f
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E1a,
E1b
E3e, E3f,
E3g, E3h,
C2, C3
9
9
9
9
9
9
11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation
The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a NO YES
reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted
municipal open space plan.
(See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystem
services”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwater
storage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat.
D2e, E1b
E2h,
E2m, E2o,
E2n, E2p
9 9
b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource.C2a, E1c,
C2c, E2q
9 9
c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area
with few such resources.
C2a, C2c
E1c, E2q
9 9
d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by the
community as an open space resource.
C2c, E1c 9 9
e. Other impacts: _____________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
9 9
12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO YES
environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or
characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d 9 9
c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
4
4
DRAFTPage 8 of 10
13. Impact on Transportation
The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.j)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 14.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network.D2j 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or
more vehicles.
D2j 9 9
c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access.D2j 9 9
d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations.D2j 9 9
e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.D2j 9 9
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
14. Impact on Energy
The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.k)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation.D2k 9 9
b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission
or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a
commercial or industrial use.
D1f,
D1q, D2k
9 9
c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity.D2k 9 9
d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square
feet of building area when completed.
D1g 9 9
e. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light
The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. NO YES
(See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local
regulation.
D2m 9 9
b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,
hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home.
D2m, E1d 9 9
c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day.D2o 9 9
f. Other impacts:
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Please See Part 3
Please See Part 3
DRAFTPage 9 of 10
d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties.D2n 9 9
e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing
area conditions.
D2n, E1a 9 9
f. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
16. Impact on Human Health
The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure NO YES
to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No,or
small
impact
may cccur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed day
care center, group home, nursing home or retirement community.
E1d 9 9
b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation.E1g, E1h 9 9
c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental site
remediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action.
E1g, E1h 9 9
d.The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the
property (e.g., easement or deed restriction).
E1g, E1h 9 9
e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place
to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health.
E1g, E1h 9 9
f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future
generation, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the
environment and human health.
D2t 9 9
g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste
management facility.
D2q, E1f 9 9
h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste.D2q, E1f 9 9
i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, of
solid waste.
D2r, D2s 9 9
j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of
a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
E1f, E1g
E1h
9 9
k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill
site to adjacent off site structures.
E1f, E1g 9 9
l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the
project site.
D2s, E1f,
D2r
9 9
m. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
4
DRAFTPlease See Part 3
DRAFTPage 10 of 10
17. Consistency with Community Plans
The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. NO YES
(See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp
contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s).
C2, C3, D1a
E1a, E1b
9 9
b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village
in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%.
C2 9 9
c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3 9 9
d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use
plans.
C2, C2 9 9
e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not
supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.
C3, D1c,
D1d, D1f,
D1d, Elb
9 9
f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development
that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.
C4, D2c, D2d
D2j
9 9
g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or
commercial development not included in the proposed action)
C2a 9 9
h. Other: _____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
18. Consistency with Community Character
The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. NO YES
(See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3.
Relevant
Part I
Question(s)
No, or
small
impact
may occur
Moderate
to large
impact may
occur
a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas
of historic importance to the community.
E3e, E3f, E3g 9 9
b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g.
schools, police and fire)
C4 9 9
c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where
there is a shortage of such housing.
C2, C3, D1f
D1g, E1a
9 9
d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized
or designated public resources.
C2, E3 9 9
e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and
character.
C2, C3 9 9
f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3
E1a, E1b
E2g, E2h
9 9
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
9 9
DRAFT
Criteria: Selected Map Area
New York Nature Explorer
http://www.dec.ny.gov/natureexplorer/
Maplewood II EAF Part 2/3
Common Name
State
Distribution
Status
Protection Status Conservation RankSubgroup
Federal State Global
Year Last
Documente
Animal: Dragonflies and Damselflies
Midland Clubtail Dragonflies S3Historically
Confirmed G51894
Gomphurus fraternus
Mocha Emerald Dragonflies S2S3Historically
Confirmed G51926
Somatochlora linearis
Rapids Clubtail Dragonflies S3Historically
Confirmed G3G4
Phanogomphus quadricolor
Spine-crowned Clubtail Dragonflies S1Historically
Confirmed G4
Hylogomphus abbreviatus
Page 1 of
8/26/24 3:00 PM
2New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York Nature Explorer
Common Name
State
Distribution
Status
Protection Status Conservation RankSubgroup
Federal State Global
Year Last
Documente
Tiger Spiketail Dragonflies S1Historically
Confirmed G4
Cordulegaster erronea
Plant: Flowering Plants
Delicate Rabbit Tobacco Asters, Goldenrods and
Daisies SHHistorically
Confirmed G4G5T3?Endangered1919
Pseudognaphalium
micradenium
Three Birds Orchid Orchids S2Historically
Confirmed G4?T4?Threatened1922
Triphora trianthophoros ssp.
trianthophoros
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
8/26/24 3:00 PM
Page 2 of 2
Note: Restricted plants and animals may also have also been documented in one or more of the Towns or Cities in which
your user-defined area is located, but are not listed in these results. This application does not provide information at the level
of Town or City on state-listed animals and on other sensitive animals and plants. A list of the restricted animals and plants
documented at the corresponding county level can be obtained via the County link(s) on the original User Defined Search
Results page. Any individual plant or animal on this county’s restricted list may or may not occur in this particular user-defined
area.
This list only includes records of rare species and significant natural communities from the databases of the NY Natural
Heritage Program. This list is not a definitive statement about the presence or absence of all plants and animals, including
rare or state-listed species, or of all significant natural communities. For most areas, comprehensive field surveys have not
been conducted, and this list should not be considered a substitute for on-site surveys.
--Ua(0i‘.iBI-J1t‘4L1’
PrimeandotherImportantFarmlands---TompkinsCounty,NewYorkMaplewoodIiEAFPart2-3PrimeandotherImportantFarmlandsThistableliststhemapunitsinthesurveyareathatareconsideredimportantfarmlands.Importantfarmlandsconsistofprimefarmland,uniquefarmland,andfarmlandofstatewideorlocalimportance.Thislistdoesnotconstitutearecommendationforaparticularlanduse,Inanefforttoidentifytheextentandlocationofimportantfarmlands,theNaturalResourcesConservationService,incooperationwithotherinterestedFederal,State,andlocalgovernmentorganizations,hasinventoriedlandthatcanbeusedfortheproductionoftheNation’sfoodsupply.PrimefarmlandisofmajorimportanceinmeetingtheNation’sshort-andlong-rangeneedsforfoodandfiber.Becausethesupplyofhigh-qualityfarmlandislimited,theU.S.DepartmentofAgriculturerecognizesthatresponsiblelevelsofgovernment,aswellasindividuals,shouldencourageandfacilitatethewiseuseofourNation’sprimefarmland.Primefarmland,asdefinedbytheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,islandthathasthebestcombinationofphysicalandchemicalcharacteristicsforproducingfood,feed,forage,fiber,andoilseedcropsandisavailablefortheseuses.Itcouldbecultivatedland,pastureland,forestland,orotherland,butitisnoturbanorbuilt-uplandorwaterareas.Thesoilquality,growingseason,andmoisturesupplyarethoseneededforthesoiltoeconomicallyproducesustainedhighyieldsofcropswhenpropermanagement,includingwatermanagement,andacceptablefarmingmethodsareapplied.Ingeneral,primefarmlandhasanadequateanddependablesupplyofmoisturefromprecipitationorirrigation,afavorabletemperatureandgrowingseason,acceptableacidityoralkalinity,anacceptablesaltandsodiumcontent,andfewornorocks.Thewatersupplyisdependableandofadequatequality.Primefarmlandispermeabletowaterandair.Itisnotexcessivelyerodibleorsaturatedwithwaterforlongperiods,anditeitherisnotfrequentlyfloodedduringthegrowingseasonorisprotectedfromflooding.Sloperangesmainlyfrom0to6percent.MoredetailedinformationaboutthecriteriaforprimefarmlandisavailableatthelocalofficeoftheNaturalResourcesConservationService.Forsomeofthesoilsidentifiedinthetableasprimefarmland,measuresthatovercomeahazardorlimitation,suchasflooding,wetness,anddroughtiness,areneeded.Onsiteevaluationisneededtodeterminewhetherornotthehazardorlimitationhasbeenovercomebycorrectivemeasures,Arecenttrendinlanduseinsomeareashasbeenthelossofsomeprimefarmlandtoindustrialandurbanuses.Thelossofprimefarmlandtootherusesputspressureonmarginallands,whichgenerallyaremoreerodible,droughty,andlessproductiveandcannotbeeasilycultivated.USDANaturalResourcesWebSoilSurvey8/2612024ConservationServiceNationalcooperativeSoilSurveyPage1of2
PrimeandotherImportantFarmlands-—TompkinsCounty,NewYorkMaplawoodIIEAFPart2-3Uniquefarmlandislandotherthanprimefarmlandthatisusedfortheproductionofspecifichigh-valuefoodandfibercrops,suchascitrus,treenuts,olives,cranberiles,andotherfruitsandvegetables.Ithasthespecialcombinationofsoilquality,growingseason,moisturesupply,temperature,humidity,airdrainage,elevation,andaspectneededforthesoiltoeconomicallyproducesustainablehighyieldsofthesecropswhenproperlymanaged.Thewatersupplyisdependableandofadequatequality.Nearnesstomarketsisanadditionalconsideration.Uniquefarmlandisnotbasedonnationalcriteria.Itcommonlyisinareaswherethereisaspecialmicroclimate,suchasthewinecountryinCalifornia.Insomeareas,landthatdoesnotmeetthecriteriaforprimeoruniquefarmlandisconsideredtobefarmlandofstatewideimportancefortheproductionoffood,feed,fiber,forage,andoilseedcrops.ThecriteriafordefininganddelineatingfarmlandofstatewideimportancearedeterminedbytheappropriateStateagencies.Generally,thislandincludesareasofsoilsthatnearlymeettherequirementsforprimefarmlandandthateconomicallyproducehighyieldsofcropswhentreatedandmanagedaccordingtoacceptablefarmingmethods.Someareasmayproduceashighayieldasprimefarmlandifconditionsarefavorable.FarmlandofstatewideimportancemayincludetractsoflandthathavebeendesignatedforagriculturebyStatelaw.Insomeareasthatarenotidentifiedashavingnationalorstatewideimportance,landisconsideredtobefarmlandoflocalimportancefortheproductionoffood,feed,fiber,forage,andoilseedcrops.Thisfarmlandisidentifiedbytheappropriatelocalagencies.Farmlandoflocalimportancemayincludetractsoflandthathavebeendesignatedforagriculturebylocalordinance.Report—PrimeandotherImportantFarmlandsLPrimeandotherImportantFarmlands—TompkinsCounty,NewYorkEMapSymbolMapUnitNameFarmlandClassificationArBArkportfinesandyloam,2to6percentslopesAllareasareprimefarmlandArCArkporlfinesandyloam,6to12percentslopesFarmlandofstatewideimportanceRkARhinebecksiltloam,0to2percentslopesPrimefarmlandifdrainedWrEWilliamsonveryfinesandyloam,2to6percentslopesAllareasareprimefarmlandDataSourceInformationSoilSurveyArea:TompkinsCounty,NewYorkSurveyAreaData:Version19,Sep5,2023usuiNaturalResources8/26/2024conservauonServicePage2of2WebSoilSurveyNationalcooperativeSoilSurvey
.pL&0-a
DRAFTFull Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts
and
Determination of Significance
Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question
in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular
element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact.
Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess
the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not
have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its
determination of significance.
Reasons Supporting This Determination:
To complete this section:
•Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity,
size or extent of an impact.
•Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impact
occurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to
occur.
•The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes.
•Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where
there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse
environmental impact.
•Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impact
•For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so that
no significant adverse environmental impacts will result.
•Attach additional sheets, as needed.
Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted
Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
Agency Use Only [IfApplicable]
Project :
Date :
FEAF 2019
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS
DRAFTUpon review of the information recorded on this EAF, as noted, plus this additional support information
and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact, it is the conclusion of the
as lead agency that:
A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental impact
statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, that impact will be avoided or
substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency:
There will, therefore, be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned, and, therefore, this conditioned negative
declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions (see 6 NYCRR 617.7(d)).
C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment, and an environmental impact
statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s) and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those
impacts. Accordingly, this positive declaration is issued.
Name of Action:
Name of Lead Agency:
Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency:
Title of Responsible Officer:
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date:
Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer) Date:
For Further Information:
Contact Person:
Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail:
For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations, a copy of this Notice is sent to:
Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located (e.g., Town / City / Village of)
Other involved agencies (if any)
Applicant (if any)
Environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html
Page 2 of 2
(staff will check appropriate box after PB makes determination)
1
Initial draft for PB review – 9-17-2024
Revised for 12/17/24 PB mtg
Part 3 – Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts
& Determination of Significance
Maplewood Phase II
State Environmental Quality Review
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Actions: Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Rezoning to Planned Development Zone
Location: Maple Avenue, Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6, 63.-2-7.1, 63.-2-7.3
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Involved Agency: Town of Ithaca Town Board
Description: The project is the proposed Maplewood Phase II on Maple Avenue, located between
the Maplewood Graduate Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project
involves consolidating four (4) tax parcels and constructing a community center and six (6) five-story
apartment buildings, containing up to 650approximately 615 units/800 beds in studio, one-bedroom,
and two-bedroom unit configurations. The project will also include integrated amenity/service
spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other
site improvements. Site improvements and amenity spaces include an outdoor terrace, fitness and
wellness spaces, landscaping, and lighting.
The project is located in the Multiple Residence (MR) and High Density Residential (HDR) zoning
districts of the town. The Town of Ithaca’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map envisions
a Traditional Neighborhood Development character area designation for this area of the town. To
achieve a neighborhood development style that meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and
complements the adjacent Maplewood I project, the applicants have proposed a Planned
Development Zone (PDZ) for the project. This involves a re-zoning from the High Density Residential
and Multiple Residence zoning designations to a PDZ, which is a Town Board action. Like the
Maplewood Phase I project, the PDZ for Maplewood Phase II will include building design, height, and
densities that are complementary to the surrounding area.
Along with the re-zoning to a PDZ, the project also requires site plan approval and special permit by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. The project is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code - Environmental
Quality Review, because it involves a zoning change and the construction of 250 or more residential
units (30 or more per Town Code) that will be connected to existing community or public water and
sewage systems (NYCRR 617.4 (b)(3) and (b)(5)(iii); Town Code Section 148-5.B(2)).
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board reviewed a sketch plan for the Maplewood Phase II project on July
2, 2024. The board declared their intent to be the Lead Agency in the environmental review for the
project on August 6, 2024. Having received no objections from involved agencies, the Planning Board
established themselves as Lead Agency on September 17, 2024.
2
1. Impact on Land
e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple
phases.
f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physical disturbance or vegetation
removal (including from treatment by herbicides) – please see #3 and #5 below, impacts on surface area
and flooding.
Briefly describe the impact on land: The four parcels associated with the project (referred to as the
“project site”) are bound on the north by Maple Avenue, with Cornell University-owned agricultural
fields and the East Lawn Cemetery along the easternmost boundary, and the Cornell Maplewood
Graduate and Professional Student Apartments on the south and westernmost boundary. There is a
City of Ithaca-owned parcel that contains a city water tank located between the project site along
Maple Avenue.
The project site contains vacant land, Cornell agricultural plots, building foundations, paved drive
lanes, paved and gravel parking areas, capped utilities from a former development, some large trees,
and a variety of vegetation in various succession. Two of the four parcels that make up the project
site contained single-family residences until 2020. The fourth and largest parcel contained the Maple
Hill Apartment Complex (later known as Ithaca East), constructed in 1972, and operated by the
Abbott family until October 2019. The complex consisted of 82 units in 11 apartment buildings, a
small utility shed, and a garage/maintenance building, along with planters, roads, parking areas,
playgrounds, and other residential features. The complex was closed and vacated by all tenants
shortly after its closing. The current property owner (Cornell University) subsequently installed
security fencing around the complex and, after Planning Board approval in February 2020,
demolished the apartment complex and the two single-family residences, leaving the foundations,
parking areas, and other structures that currently exist on the project site.
The application materials and the Full EAF Part 1, page 3, number D.1.e., note that the project will be
constructed in one phase but will take more than one year to complete (27 months anticipated). The
project is anticipated to generate approximately 500 truckloads of materials, translating to roughly
1000 truck trips, with trucks loaded with materials traveling to or from the site during the site work
phase of the project. The applicant has indicated in emails with Christine Balestra, Senior Planner,
dated October 21, 2024, and November 15, 2024, that trucks coming to the site from the North
would utilize NYS Route 366/Dryden Road, then Pine Tree Road to Maple Avenue (reversed for trucks
leaving the site); and trucks coming from the South will use NYS Route 79E/Slaterville Road, then Pine
Tree Road to Maple Avenue (reversed for trucks leaving the site). Town Code Chapter 230, this
project will require a Road Use Agreement, subject to the directive of the Town of Ithaca Highway
Superintendent.
All four parcels that make up the project site have been previously disturbed, the largest of which
contained a multifamily residential development until 2019. More than half of the proposed
Maplewood Phase II development will therefore be constructed over existing impervious surfaces.
The submitted Phase I Environmental Assessment, prepared by Matrix Environmental Technologies,
Inc., dated April 15, 2024, contains a full history of the project site.
3
Based on the above information, the impact on land identified in this section can be considered small
in magnitude.
3. Impact on Surface Water
h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that
may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies.
i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of
the proposed action.
5. Impact on Flooding
d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns.
Briefly describe the impact on surface water and flooding:
Waterbodies within or downstream of the site: The project site is 9.72+/- acres in size, currently
consisting of 6.95.7+/- acres of lawn, planting beds, agricultural fields, and woods, along with
3.52.8+/- acres of impervious surfaces (building foundations, parking areas, concrete, asphalt, gravel
areas). The closest water body is Cascadilla Creek, located 600+/- feet north and east of the project
site, along Pine Tree Road. The creek will be unaffected by the project. There is also a stream located
south of Mitchell Street that drains into the Six Mile Creek watershed, which could be impacted by
the project if stormwater management controls are not implemented.
Based on information in the FEAF I, physicalsoil disturbance associated with construction and site
development will be 9.257 acres. Given this extent of disturbance, the project is required to produce
a Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include both temporary erosion controls and
permanent stormwater management practices in conformance with the Town of Ithaca Code Chapter
228 and NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) General Permit GP-0-20X-001.
According to the SWPPP (August 16, 2024) submitted by the applicant team, the Maplewood Phase II
stormwater will drain through the Maplewood Phase I stormwater collection system and into the
municipal-owned system on Mitchell Street. The municipal system discharges to Six Mile Creek, which
ultimately discharges into Cayuga Lake.
There are otherwise no streams, wetlands, significant slopes, or Unique Natural Areas anywhere on
or near the project site. None of the water bodies noted above will be directly impacted by the
project. Any potential indirect impacts are expected to be mitigated with the proposed stormwater
practices below, which will be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineering Department.
Soil Erosion, Water Quantity, Flooding, Water Quality: The project site has been previously disturbed
and contains impervious surfaces associated with former development. The Maplewood Phase II
project will result in an additional 2.3+/- acres of impervious surface. Redevelopment of a previously
disturbed site is encouraged from a watershed protection standpoint because it often provides an
opportunity to conserve natural resources in less impacted areas by targeting development to areas
with existing services and infrastructure. Redevelopment also provides an opportunity to correct
existing problems and reduce pollutant discharges from older developed areas that were constructed
without effective stormwater pollution prevention controls.
To mitigate soil erosion during construction, the applicant proposes installing temporary practices
such as silt fences, sediment traps, temporary swales, check dams, and berms to capture runoff,
4
along with a stabilized construction entrance and erosion control blankets. After construction, the
disturbed areas will be seeded with locally appropriate seed mix to prevent soil damage, promote
deep root growth, and provide permanent soil stabilization. The site will then be mulched and
landscaped per the final approved landscape plan.
Permanent water quality practices include the installation of eight bioretention filters and three sand
filters. The bioretention filter practices will provide water runoff reduction for the whole site, along
with a portion of the water quality volume. The three sand filter practices will provide the remaining
required water quality volume reduction. The practices will be installed to maintain sheet flow
conditions on the site and to maintain pre-condition drainage patterns and peak discharge rates.
Peak discharge rates leaving the site will meet pre-development rates. Additionally, the project
includes three bBelow-grade storage chambers and a stormwater retention pond will be utilized to
achieve the pre-development discharge rates. stormwater detention systems to provide for the 1-, 2-,
10-, 25-, and 100- year storm events. These and other practices are described in the SWPPP that was
submitted to the Town’s Engineering Department for their review and approval.
Based on the above information, impact on surface water and flooding identified in this section can
be considered small in magnitude.
7. Impact on Plants and Animals
j. Other impacts: Loss of vegetation associated with proposed development.
Briefly describe the impact on plants and animals: The project includes some tree and vegetation
removal, all of which is detailed on sheet C102, Demolition Plan, dated 07-17-2024. Based on the
Demolition Plan, site development will require the removal of between 17 and 35 large trees (18”-48”
DBH – there are 28 Hemlocks shown on the demolition plan without DBH labeled, so it’s unclear their
size).The largest trees to be removed are located near Maple Avenue, in the area where Building A
will be located. These include a 48” Silver Maple, 36” Tulip, and 30” Austrian Pine. By contrast, the
project will protect and preserve another 36” Tulip, 36” Silver Maple, 28” Butternut Hickory, and
other existing site trees. The project also includes a robust landscaping plan that will consist of non-
invasive large deciduous and coniferous trees, small deciduous and coniferous trees, deciduous
shrubs, perennials, grasses, ferns, and ground covers.
There are no known threatened or endangered plant or animal species on the project site that would
be affected by the project. According to the NYS DEC Nature Explorer Mapping program, the
“Delicate Rabbit Tobacco” and “Three Birds Orchid” plants that have been historically confirmed on
the site have not been documented since 1922. Similarly, there are four species of dragonfly that
have been historically confirmed on the site, but not documented since 1926. Given this, and the
prior site disturbance and development, it is highly unlikely that these plant and animal species are
present on the project site.
Based on the above information, impact on plants and animals identified in this section can be
considered small in magnitude.
8. Impact on Agricultural Resources
a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification
System.
5
Briefly describe the impact on agricultural resources: The project site is not located within a Tompkins
County designated, NYS-certified Agricultural District. However, one of the parcels along Maple
Avenue is currently utilized for Cornell agricultural and farm research. This parcel contains soils
classified as Prime Farmland (Class II) and Farmland of Statewide Importance (Class III).
The Town of Ithaca has an Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan that was adopted in November
2011. Map 9 in the Plan, titled “Farmland Targeted for Protection,” includes a category for “Cornell
University and State-Owned Agricultural Research Land.” The parcel that is currently farmed is not
included among those targeted for protection and is not considered a high priority to remain in
agriculture. The conversion of this land from agriculture to development associated with the
Maplewood Phase II project is not in conflict with the Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan.
Based on the above information, impact on agricultural resources identified in this section would be
considered small in magnitude.
9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources
c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points (seasonally or year-round).
d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is routine travel
by residents, including travel to and from work; and recreational of tourism based activities.
f. There are similar projects visible within 0-1/2 mile of the proposed project – Maplewood I is adjacent.
Briefly describe the impact on aesthetic resources: The Maplewood Phase II development will be
situated along Maple Avenue, which is a town-owned public road. Even with proposed landscaping,
the portion of the project along Maple Avenue will be seen year round. According to the visual
assessment that was provided, the project will also be visible year round from a few points along NYS
Route 366 and Pine Tree Road. Finally, it will be visible year round from Maplewood Phase I
development, which is immediately adjacent to the project site. The proposed development is in an
area that is surrounded by development and other residential apartment complexes. Its view is not
unique, and it is not near or within any identified scenic views noted below.
The Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County have established Scenic Resources Inventories that identify
significant views in the East Hill area. There are no designated scenic views or other identified scenic
resources around the project site that would be impacted by the proposed development. Aesthetic
and/or visual impacts are mainly limited to those traveling along Maple Avenue or from looking in the
direction of the development from across Maple Avenue. Those traveling on Pine Tree Road will only
view the development as they pass the Maple Avenue intersection; and those traveling along NYS
Route 366 will see the development off in the distance across existing farm fields and through
existing vegetation.
Based on the above information, impact on aesthetic resources identified in this section would be
considered small in magnitude.
10. Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources
a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings,
archaeological site or district which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places, or that
has been determined by the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places.
6
Briefly describe the impact on historic and archaeological resources: The application materials
contain a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Matrix Environmental Technologies,
Inc., dated April 15, 2024, that includes a thorough history of the project site, with historical
photographs and information about Mitchell Family Cemetery. The Mitchell Family Cemetery was
identified as being eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places during the
Maplewood Phase I review process. The cemetery is located at the northeast corner of the
Maplewood Phase I project, which is adjacent to the Maplewood Phase II project. It has been
preserved and protected by a permanent black metal fence that surrounds the cemetery.
The applicant contacted the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
(SHPO) to inquire if SHPO had any concerns about the proximity of the Maplewood Phase II
development to the cemetery. SHPO responded with a letter, dated June 21, 2024 (included with
project application materials), that recommended a construction protection plan for historic
resources within 90 feet of proposed construction activities.
The demolition, grading, and utility plans indicate construction disturbance within 90 feet of the
cemetery. The demolition plan (sheet C102) shows an additional temporary construction fence
surrounding the cemetery to protect it from any ground disturbance, equipment, or material storage
or encroachment. The temporary fence is in addition to the existing permanent fence and another
temporary construction fence located along the property boundary that encompasses the entire
project site. Building G (new community center) will be located approximately 30 feet from the
cemetery after construction. The proposed additional fencing should be enough to protect the
cemetery, however this plan should be submitted and approved by SHPO before any building permits
are issued for the project.
There are no other buildings, structures, or sites of historical or archaeological importance on or near
the project that will be impacted by the Maplewood Phase II development. Based on the above
information and proposed mitigations, impact on historic and archaeological resources identified in
this section would be considered small in magnitude.
13. Impact on Transportation
e. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods.
f. Other impacts: Parking discrepancy noted between Traffic Impact Assessment and project plan set.
Briefly describe the impact on transportation: The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact
Assessment, prepared by Gordon T. Stansbury, P.E., P.T.O.E., GTS Consulting, dated June 7, 2024, that
has evaluated the impact of the proposed Maplewood Phase II development on the existing roadway
and multimodal systems. The assessment studied existing traffic volumes and data on several area
roadways, and also utilized data from the Maplewood Phase I traffic study, which analyzed several
other developments within a 2/3-mile radius that were constructed or were under construction at
the time.
The Traffic Impact Assessment includes an analysis of existing conditions, along with no-build and
build scenarios. Data collection was taken during the academic year, when all schools (primary,
secondary, and college) were in session. The collection includes separate heavy vehicle counts as well
as pedestrian counts. According to the traffic assessment, the Maplewood Phase II project will
7
generate approximately 21 entering/34 exiting new vehicle trips during the weekday AM peak hour
and 39 entering/43 exiting new vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
Level of Service (LOS) qualitatively describes a driver’s experience of the operating conditions of a
roadway based on factors such as speed and number of vehicles using the road. The traffic
assessment shows that nearly all study intersections currently operate and will continue to operate at
vehicle LOS D or better, but that the LOS at all studied intersections would slightly decrease as a
result of the Maplewood Phase II development. The decrease in service, mostly resulting in waiting
times of an additional 2-5 seconds average delay, is not considered a significant adverse impact.
Town of Ithaca Planning staff reviewed the traffic study that was previously submitted for the
Maplewood Phase I development and compared the anticipated morning and evening peak hour
traffic with the current actual morning and evening peak hour traffic counts. The traffic study for
Maplewood I anticipated approximately 78 entering/68 exiting vehicle trips during the weekday AM
peak hour and 55 entering/68 exiting vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. These estimates were
significantly higher than the existing conditions (page 7 of the traffic assessment), which show that
the existing Maplewood Phase I development only generate 24 trips entering/40 trips exiting during
the morning peak hour; and 45 entering/50 exiting during evening peak hour.
Regarding the existing and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and multimodal network, the project’s
internal elements will include a system of sidewalks and connections throughout the site. Along the
frontage, Tthe project will include a new sidewalk and streetscape improvements along the Maple
Avenue frontage that will connect to the existing sidewalk in the City of Ithaca and create an inviting
and safe streetscape for all modes of transport. There will be a multimodal path in the middle of the
Maplewood Phase II project that will connect to the East Ithaca Recreation Way to the south of the
project site in the Maplewood I project. There will also be a crosswalk on Maple Avenue to improve
the connection to the East Ithaca Recreation Way to the north of the project site. The project
includes covered storage for up to 100 bicycles, bike racks/outdoor storage for an additional 42
bicycles, and locations for 8 Ithaca Bikeshare bicycles.
As there will be an increase in the population, the project also includes an increase in the number of
parking spaces on the site. The Traffic Impact Assessment indicates that the 925+/- bed project will
generate a need for up to 202 parking spaces. It is noted that there is a discrepancy in the number of
proposed parking spaces between the Traffic Impact Assessment page 10 ‘Parking Demands’ (178
proposed parking spaces) and the Landscaping Plan sheet L-200, revision date 8/23/202412/9/2024
(15560 spaces shown). This isn’t inherently a problem, considering the traffic assessment was based
on an overestimation of the proposed parking spaces. Regardless, the proposed number of parking
spaces is less than the estimated need. The Traffic Impact Assessment notes that the existing surface
parking located in the Maplewood Phase I development is underutilized, with as many as 100 extra
parking spaces available that could be used to meet parking demands in the Maplewood Phase II
development by paid permit unbundled from rental charges. Additionally, shared parking creates
opportunities for more compact development, more space for pedestrian circulation, or more open
space and landscaping.
The project includes the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management plan (TDM) to
mitigate any potential impacts related to the lack of parking for the project. The TDM plan includes
unbundled parking (separating the cost of parking from the cost of rent), multimodal pathways
8
(mentioned above), increased public transit opportunities (mentioned below), coordination with area
bikeshare and carshare programs, and other programs intended to promote alternative modes of
travel. The applicant team has already contacted the Ithaca Carshare and Ithaca Bikeshare program
coordinators to explore options to expand services, which already exist in the area. The Planning
Board should consider requiring the applicant team to commit to implementing the list of TDM
strategies that are recommended on page 9 of the traffic assessment.
Regarding public transit service and access, the area currently contains many designated transit stops
for the Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) bus service along Maple Avenue, including at least
two that are located within ¼ mile of the project. Maple Avenue is well served by TCAT routes 10, 30,
32, 43, 51, and 82. The applicant team has contacted TCAT to explore the idea of creating an
additional bus stop along Maple Avenue to serve the residents of the proposed development.
In terms of sight distance for the project (the length of a road that a driver can see clearly), the traffic
assessment notes that there is “more than adequate sight distance available looking in both
directions along Maple Avenue from the proposed site driveways.” However, the sight distance listed
for the loop access exit driveway along Maple Avenue, turning left (out of the project and onto Maple
Avenue), is very close to the maximum minimum distance required by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO requires 445 of clear sight distance,
whereas the available sight distance is 45045 feet. The project includes an entrance-only access for
the east driveway loop, which will mitigate potential sight distance impacts by eliminating a left-turn
out of the project onto Maple Avenue. The applicant team should carefully choose and locate
vegetation and landscaping that does not further impede the sight distance along this 445 foot stretch
of Maple Avenue.
Overall, the Traffic Impact Assessment that was submitted is thorough and indicates that there will
not be a significant impact on transportation associated with the Maplewood Phase II development.
Based on the above information and proposed mitigations, impact on transportation identified in this
section would be considered small in magnitude.
14. Impact on Energy
d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square feet of building
area when completed.
e. Other impacts: Project must comply with Town of Ithaca Energy Code Supplement.
Briefly describe the impact on energy: The Maplewood Phase II development will involve
approximately 410,000 square feet of building area when completed. The application materials
indicate that the project will comply with the Town of Ithaca Energy Code Supplement. The project
will utilize 100% electric energy usage for heating and cooling via air source heat pump systems, and
hot water via electric hybrid heat pump technology. The project will also incorporate high-efficiency,
LED lighting, electric Energy Star-rated appliances, electric vehicle charging stations, and designated
roof areas on the buildings for future solar panels. These and other measures, like purchasing
materials with a low carbon footprint, and sourcing local, sustainable, and/or reclaimed and recycled
building materials will serve to minimize adverse environmental impacts related to greenhouse gas
emissions to the maximum extent practicable.
9
The applicant team has calculated the electrical load for the project but has not yet contacted NYSEG
to see if the utility has concerns about the connection of such a large project to the electric grid.
Coordination with NYSEG should be a condition of approval for this project, should the Planning
Board grant such approval.
Based on the above information, impact on energy identified in this section would be considered
small in magnitude.
15. Impact on Noise and Light
a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local regulation.
f. Other impacts: The project includes lighting that must comply with the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 173,
Outdoor Lighting.
Briefly describe the impact on noise and light: The project will create noise and vibration impacts
from equipment, construction vehicles, worker traffic, and delivery vehicles. These impacts will be
temporary and will cease once the project is completed. Noise levels caused by construction activities
will vary depending on the phase of construction. To mitigate noise impacts to adjacent and nearby
residences, noise-producing construction-related activities on the project site will be limited to the
hours of 7am to 4pm, Monday – Friday, and from 7am to 4pm Saturday and Sundays “as needed.”
The project includes 78 street and pedestrian light poles, 16- to 20-feet tall, located throughout the
site. According to the lighting schedule shown on the landscaping plan (sheet L-200), proposed site
lighting will match the lighting that exists in the Maplewood Phase I project. Any proposed outdoor
lighting will be required to comply with the provisions of Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 173, Outdoor
Lighting. The Code contains provisions related to glare and dark-sky compliance. Proposed outdoor
light fixture details (cut sheets) will need to be submitted as part of the site plan submission to ensure
compliance with the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Law and a photometric plan will also need to be
reviewed by the Planning Board to ensure light trespass to neighboring properties is minimized.
Based on the above information, impact on noise and light identified in this section would be
considered small in magnitude.
17. Consistency with Community Plans
c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations.
Briefly describe the impact on community plans: The Maplewood Phase II project involves a
significant increase in density, from the 82 unit/192 bed development that existed on the site until
2019 to a 615 unit/925+/- bed development that will exist after completion of the project. There will
be no change in the residential land use characteristic or the graduate/professional student
population demographic that will live in the Maplewood II development. The Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan recommends focusing new residential development in areas near major
employment centers and the City of Ithaca municipal boundary. The Maplewood Phase II project
meets the Plan’s recommendation, as it is located on an infill site just beyond the City of Ithaca
municipal boundary. The project is also near the Cornell University campus, is about 1.2 miles east of
downtown Ithaca, and is within a 10 to 20 minute walk of East Hill Plaza and the center of Ithaca’s
Collegetown area. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends denser, mixed-use development in the
10
Mitchell Street/Maple Avenue/Pine Tree Road area of the town, which includes the Maplewood II
site.
The Comprehensive Plan has designated the Maplewood Phase II project site as an area where
traditional neighborhood development (TND) would be appropriate. The project involves a change in
the town’s zoning from the current High Density Residential and Multiple Residence zoning
designations to a Planned Development Zone (PDZ). The proposed PDZ language for Maplewood II
utilizes a form-based, TND zoning approach that includes design standards for many elements of the
development. The height and density of buildings within the project will be mitigated through design
that is sensitive to the surrounding area. The TND-PDZ approach aligns with the goals of the Town
Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the above information, impact on community plans identified in this section would be
considered small in magnitude.
18. Consistency with Community Character
b. The proposed action may create demand for additional community services (e.g., schools, police, and fire)
Briefly describe the impact on community character: The project will create a demand for additional
police and fire service and could potentially create a slight demand for additional school service. Most
of tThese services appear to be adequate to serve the project. However, it is yet to be confirmed if
the project will comply with the fire flow requirements of the NYS Fire Code. The applicant has been
working with, and will continue to work with, the Town of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement
(Town of Ithaca Fire Marshall) to find a resolution to the fire flow issue. not confirmed whether the
specific site layout elements (emergency/fire aerial access, road widths, separation distances
between buildings, number, and location of fire hydrants, etc.) will comply with NYS Fire & Building
Code provisions. The applicant will need approval for these elements from the Town of Ithaca
Director of Code Enforcement (Town of Ithaca Fire Marshall), in consultation with the Ithaca Fire
Department. Should the Planning Board grant site plan approval for the project, the board could add
a condition that the Town of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement must approve the proposed fire
flow calculations and processes.
The character of the existing neighborhood along Maple Avenue and surrounding the project site is a
mix of residential apartment complexes and industrial/institutional structures of varying heights,
architectural styles and building massing, along with a Cornell educational research farm plot and
field on the north side of Maple Avenue. The East Lawn Cemetery is immediately east of the project,
with East Hill Plaza commercial area a little more than ¼ mile east of the project. As such, there is no
predominant architectural character.
The application materials note that the “architecture and landscape will seamlessly blend to reinforce
connectivity and community,” and that the “façade design implements strategies to relate the new
buildings with the scale of the Phase I residences.” The Phase I residential buildings are four stories
tall, with building lengths along Maple Avenue that are around 200+/- linear feet long. The building
massing and scale is broken up via balconies and a brick façade that extends out from the buildings
and up from the first floor to the third floor of the buildings in two areas.
11
The proposed Phase II buildings are five stories tall, around 250+/- linear feet long, with massing
broken up by small sections of glass and pops of color. The proposed architecture and façade design
is different from the Maplewood Phase I project but is not out of character with the surrounding
neighborhood.
As noted in #9 above (Impact on Aesthetic Resources), there are no scenic resources identified in the
Town of Ithaca Scenic Resource Inventory or Tompkins County Scenic Resource Inventory that will be
impacted by the proposed development. The development will be very visible from Maple Avenue,
the East Lawn Cemetery, Maplewood Phase I, and in the Cornell fields across Maple Avenue.
However, any visual impacts of the project will be mitigated by the proposed varied landscaping
throughout the project and along all sides of the project. Visual impacts could also be mitigated along
Maple Avenue by implementing some of the architectural strategies noted above. These specific
mitigation measures, along with other site elements such as signage and lighting, should be further
reviewed and evaluated by the Planning Board as part of the site plan review process.
Based on the above information, impact on community character identified in this section would be
considered small in magnitude.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Recommendation to the Town Board
Proposed Planned Development Zone – Maplewood Phase II Project
Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 63.-2-5, 63.-2-6,
63.-2-7.1, and 63.-2-7.3
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
December 17, 2024
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding the Proposed Rezoning
for the Maplewood Phase II Project on Maple Avenue, located between the Maplewood Graduate
Student Apartment complex and the East Lawn Cemetery. The project, which requires a rezoning
from Multiple Residence and High Density Residential Zones to a Planned Development Zone
(PDZ), involves consolidating four parcels and constructing six (6) five-story apartment buildings,
containing 615 units/800 beds in studio, one bedroom, and two-bedroom unit configurations. The
project will also include integrated amenity/service spaces, parking areas, trails and pedestrian
facilities, open spaces, stormwater facilities, and other site improvements. The project is a Type I
Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is subject to environmental review.
Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michele Palmer, Whitham Planning, Design, Landscape
Architecture, PLLC, Agent,
2. The Maplewood Phase II development project has been determined to be consistent with the Town
Comprehensive Plan, which included the project site in the “TND High Density” category,
intending the area for a mix of higher density housing types “built to create an intentional
neighborhood with linkages and proximity to services, employment, public transit, and
recreational areas,”
3. The consultant team drafted language for a Maplewood II Planned Development Zone (PDZ) that
utilizes a form-based code approach to guide and regulate the form of the development, following
the formatting and language used in the Maplewood Graduate and Professional Student Housing
Redevelopment Project PDZ (PDZ No. 16),
4. The Town of Ithaca Planning Committee reviewed the draft Maplewood Phase II PDZ language at
their meetings on June 20, 2024, July 18, 2024, August 15, 2024, and September 16, 2024, and
referred the draft language to the Town Board for referral to the Planning Board,
5. The consultant team, along with Greystar, a developer/owner/manager of collegiate housing,
presented the development proposal and draft PDZ to the Town Board on October 7, 2024, where
the Town Board, via resolution, then referred the draft PDZ to the Planning Board for review and
a recommendation, and
6. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on December 17, 2024, has reviewed, discussed, and
considered the draft Maplewood Phase II PDZ language;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That, per Town Code §270-181 (F), the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Ithaca Town Board
adopt a local law creating a Planned Development Zone for the Maplewood Phase II Project, with the
recommended changes outlined in the draft document titled “Draft Maplewood II PDZ- for 12-17-24
Planning Board meeting.”
1
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Introduction
The Maplewood II Planned Development (PD) PDZ Zone enables and guides the redevelopment of the
Maplewood Phase II housing complex, and its underlying site, into a compact, walkable resident community.
This §271-18 uses a form-based zoning approach with objective yet flexible standards, to provide clarity and
certainty about site planning and the resulting built environment.
The project envisions a high-density housing type with a resident community center and potential future allows
for neighborhood commercial use as well. Planned Development Zone No. 15 (Maplewood Phase I, §271-1516)
consists of both medium and high-density zones. Phase II will function as an additional high-density zone within
the overall Maplewood resident community. Maplewood Phase II will connect to Phase I’s grid of streets with a
continuation of Lena Street.
The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan recommends focusing on new residential development in areas near major
employment centers, walkable to nearby destinations, and near the City of Ithaca boundary. Maplewood II is located on
an approximately 9-acre infill site entirely within the Town of Ithaca, and approximately 400 feet from the City of Ithaca
boundary. The project is near the Cornell University campus, about 1.2 miles east of downtown Ithaca, and within a 10
to 20-minute walk of both East Hill Plaza and the center of Collegetown. The Comprehensive Plan also recommends
denser mixed-use traditional neighborhood development between Mitchell Street and Maple Avenue, including the
Maplewood site.
271-18.1 Transect Subzone
A transect subzone defines parts of the larger site that will have certain physical
and functional characteristics. Maplewood Phase I and Maplewood Phase II
constitute subzones of the larger Maplewood resident community. There are two
transect subzones in PDZ 15 of Maplewood Phase I and one subzone in the PDZ 17
Maplewood Phase II site area. Figure 1 is an illustrative example of the transect
subzone locations and allocation for Maplewood I PDZ 15 (approved) and
Maplewood II PDZ 17.
Figure 1: Example of transect subzone location and allocation.
Draft Maplewood II PDZ - for 12-17-24 Planning Board meeting
2
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
271-18.2 Permitted principal and accessory uses
The following table shows permitted uses in PD 17, with specific location limitations where applicable.
P = permitted use. • = not allowed.
(cs) = commercial space in apartment building
(cc) = community center
Use (definitions in § 271-18.6) PD-17
Dwelling unit P
Health/wellness practice P (cc) (cs)
3
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Professional office P
Day Ccare center P (cc) (cs)
Restaurant P (cs)
Retail and service: general P (cs)
Artisan P (cc) (cs)
Place of assembly P
Garden Mmarket P
Community Ggarden P
Dog Ppark P
Home occupation (accessory to dwelling unit), subject to Town Code § 270-219.2 or
successor code
P
271-18.3 Neighborhood design
271-18.3 A. Dwelling units
The number of allowable dwelling units for PD 17 is: less than or equal to 615 units.
The following table showslists the breakdown range of unit numbers and types in PDZ 17.
Studios: 230 to 240
One Bedroom: 180 to 190
Two Bedroom: 175 to 185
Total: 585 to 615
Program Total Units Total Beds
Studios 240 240
One Bedroom 190 190
Two Bedroom 185 370
Totals 615 800
271-18.3 B. Civic and open space
1. Required civic building
Commented [CB1]: PB requests defining “Garden
market” - use same definition as was in MWI PDZ
Commented [SB2]: List a permissible range of units
and beds for each unit type, with the total remaining at
615 units and 800 beds? That way, the PDZ would not
have to be amended if the developer wants to slightly
change the mix of unit types.
Commented [CB3R2]: PB also requests listing a range
of total units in case project ends up with, e.g., 241
studios and 189 one-bedroom units.
4
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
The PDZ 17 site must have at least 4,000 sf space within a civic building assigned for resident community center
use. It should be located at or close to the center of a built-up area; next to a civic/open space or at the axial
termination of a prominent thoroughfare.
2. Required open space area
The PDZ 17 site must have ≥25% of the total site must be assigned to for community open space for Maplewood
residents and accessible by the public. Open space types, settings, and requirements include the following.
Open space type (definitions in §271-18.6)
Park.
A park may be a non-linear area, or linear space following connecting ways or natural corridors
A park can include wooded areas with connecting trails throughout
A dog park
A park may be independent of surrounding building frontages.
Park boundary/edge along a neighborhood interior street or perimeter street ROW: ≥10% must abut a
street
Green
Green boundary/edge along a neighborhood interior street or perimeter street ROW: ≥50% must abut
a street
Garden
Plaza
Plaza boundary/edge along a neighborhood interior street or perimeter street ROW: ≥50% must abut a
street
Court
Community open space calculation does not include the following.
A yard, balcony, patio, or other outdoor space for use or access only by a specific dwelling unit or a
limited number of dwelling units.
Public or private thoroughfare/street right-of-way, or integral features (such as sidewalks and tree
lawn areas).
Parking area or driveway.
Stormwater detention/retention facility or drainage swale area, unless design allows practical use as
an accessible year-round amenity for residents of the development (picnic area, passive recreation
Commented [SB4]: Specify at least 4,000? It does not
have to be exactly 4,000, right?
Commented [CB5]: PB recommends word searching
doc and clarifying what the “community” is (MWII
residents? Members of the public?)
Commented [SB6]: Add court and garden to open
space types? They were listed here in the Maplewood I
law, and there are standards for “open space” and
“court” in this law
Commented [SB7]: The Maplewood I law also
included this: “Areas inside a site envelope for a
residential, commercial, or civic building.” Include
something like this in this law?
5
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
area, playground, and the like), or it is a bioswale that visually integrates into the larger open space
site.
Entry feature, median, or traffic island.
3. Access
An open space area must function as part of the broader public realm and allow community-wide access and
passage.
271-18.3 C. Thoroughfares and Trails
1. Thoroughfare and trail types and design
There is one thoroughfare type: neighborhood local street.: tThere is one trail type: multi-use trail
Thoroughfare type ►
▼ Characteristics
Neighborhood local street
Purpose Primary street through the entire PD site with two vehicle lanes on the
two-way thoroughfare, one lane wide enough to accommodate fire
apparatus on the one-way thoroughfare. and Pparking provided on
both sides of all thoroughfares.
Right-of-way width 56’-64’
Sidewalk width 5’-8’ (one side - on the building side of the street and where
parallel parking is located)
Tree lawn width * 6’-10’ (one side)
Parking lane width 8’ (parallel side)
18’ (perpendicular side)
Travel area width 26’ (for two-way traffic, two 13’ lanes, no lane dividing marking; for
one-way traffic one 26’ travel lane) where fire access is required;
shared lanes marked with sharrows
Curb type barrier
Trail type ►
▼ Characteristics
Multi-use Trail
Commented [SB8]: Because of the comma placement,
“parking on both sides” seems to apply only to one-way
thoroughfares and not also to two-way thoroughfares.
Clarify the intent either way.
6
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Purpose Informal linear paved or stabilized path for pedestrian and bicycle
circulation and connectivity to the East Hill Recreation Way and
adjacent Planned Development Zone No. 15. Must accommodate
all intended users and minimize conflicts.
Trail width 10’ with minimum 2’ either side mown grass strip to act as a shoulder
Curb type none
Commented [SB9]: Who the intended users? List
somewhere
7
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Thoroughfare and Trail sections (illustrative examples)
Existing thoroughfares along the perimeter of the PDZ 17 site (Maple Avenue) must have improvements
(sidewalks, tree lawns, tree planting, and curbs), so they follow neighborhood local street standards as much as
possible. A sidewalk must follow the south side of Maple Avenue along the full PD site frontage.
A thoroughfare or trail must have hard surface paving (porous or solid asphalt, concrete, or segmental pavers) for
sidewalks, parking lanes, and travel lanes.
Neighborhood Local Street Section
Multi-use Trail Section
Commented [SB10]: The travel lanes add up to 25’,
but 26’ are required. Revise the graphic.
Change “Landscape” on the left to “Tree lawn"
Commented [SB11]: The Multi-use Trail Section
provisions are confusing. Why are “thoroughfares”
mentioned? State where the multi-use trail is located
and allowed modes of use
8
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
2. Thoroughfare and trail layout
A tThoroughfares or and trails must be permanently open to the public and provide community-wide access as part of an
overall connected street network. A tThoroughfares or and trails must not have gated access.
A thoroughfare must begin and end at other thoroughfares.
An intersection must approximate a right angle as much as possible.
271-18.43 D. Utilities
Permanent utilities (water, sewer, natural gas [if any], district heating/cooling, electricity, communications, and the
like) must be underground. Short-term utility service for construction activities may be above ground.
A utility easement must be in a location where maintenance or repair work will cause the least disruption. Utility
easement location must not prevent or undermine street tree planting.
271-18.5 Site and building design
271-18.5 A. Performance Standards
1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any use All buildings and other structures permitted in this PDZ shall be
in conformity with the following additional standards:
2. Height. The maximum height of buildings and other structures shall be as follows:
a. No building shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 65 feet in height as determined by
an average grade plane measure, but excluding rooftop appurtenances such as mechanical
equipment, exhaust pipes, radio antenna, and elevator overrides, provided such appurtenances
do not themselves exceed an additional 12 feet in height.
b. Abutting the Maple Avenue frontage between the water tower at 227 Maple Ave. and PD 15-H,
no building shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 58 feet in height as determined by
an average grade plane measure, but excluding rooftop appurtenances such as mechanical
equipment, exhaust pipes, radio antenna, and elevator overrides, provided such appurtenances
do not themselves exceed an additional 12 feet in height. No structure, other than a building,
shall be erected, altered, or extended to exceed 20 feet in height.
3. Ground Lot coverage. Total coverage of ground by buildings, thoroughfares and trails, parking lots and
sidewalks, and other structures shall not exceed 55% of the PD. Total maximum ground coverage by
buildings alone shall not exceed 25% of the PD.
4. Yards.Setbacks.
a. Unless a deviation is authorized by the Planning Board, for good cause shown, theThe building
setback yard requirements shall be as follows:
i. Front setbackyard: from Maple Avenue Right-of-way, as defined in Town Code Chapter
270, shall be not less than 12 feet.
ii. Side setbackyards: from any east-west property line shall be not less than 30 feet.
iii. Rear setbackyard: from southern property line shall be not less than 10 feet.
5. Building Separation. Building separation will be as dictated by the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and
Commented [SB12]: Numbering is off from here on
Commented [SB13]: What is an “elevator override”?
(That phrase is used in b, too.)
Commented [SB14]: Chapter 270 uses “lot coverage”
and “maximum building area”
Commented [SB15]: List the standards the Planning
Board applies to determine good cause, or delete the
PB’s ability to authorize a deviation
Commented [SB16]: What does “yard” mean? In
Chapter 270, “yard” is defined in relation to the one
principal building, but in this PDZ that does not work.
Drop the idea of “yards,” use “setback” instead, and
state what cannot happen within a setback?
Commented [SB17]: Define “right-of-way,” or replace
with “street line” terminology and definition used in
Chapter 270
Commented [SB18]: Which line(s)? For ii and iii, do
you want this to apply to the line between Maplewood I
and Maplewood II as well?
9
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Building Code for building type and construction method.
271-18.5 B. Building types and disposition
Principal building types include the following.
Building type ►
▼ Disposition
Apartment building Civic building Accessory building
(bike storage facility)
Illustrative example
Building Facade
Frontage buildout on a street
• ≥50% primary frontage
• ≥50% corner side frontage
n/a
n/a
Front façade and main entrance
orientation
May face street or public green space May face street or public green space May face street or public
green space
Bulk/Massing
Height
Gross floor area (GFA, square feet)
Street-facing wall length without
≥ 2’ offset:
Building length: primary façade
• 5 stories
n/a
≤ 100’ ground story
≤275’
• 1-3 stories
• 5,000 ft² -12,000 ft²
n/a
n/a
• 1 story
• 1500 ft² -
n/a
n/a
Façade transparency: primary ≥30% ground story ≥30% ground and upper stories ≥50% ground story
Commented [SB19]: What is “primary frontage”? Is it
inconsistent to require at least 50% on a street, yet
allow the front façade to face public green space?
Commented [SB20]: Change to < 5 stories?
Commented [SB21]: Change to < 1500 ft²?
10
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
frontage. ≥30% upper story
Façade transparency: corner side
frontage
Façade transparency: side/rear
facade (if not a party wall):
≥30% ground story
≥30% upper story
≥30% ground and upper stories
≥30% ground and upper stories
≥30% ground and upper stories
≥50% ground story
≥50% ground story
Occupancy
Dwelling Units
Commercial
90 to 110 per building
≤ 5,000 sq ft. on the ground floor,
cumulative for the site
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bicycle Storage n/a n/a 100
Zoning code (or successor code) provisions allowing certain building features to encroach beyond setback or
height limits also apply.
271-18.5 C. Building form and design
1. Four-sided design
A building must have consistent material treatment, architectural details, proportions, and colors on all exterior
walls.
2. Accessory structures
A permanent accessory building must have material treatment, architectural details, proportions, and colors that
are consistent with the principal building.
3. Exterior materials
Vinyl siding, and prefabricated and pre-engineered metal buildings, are not allowed. This does not apply to
temporary buildings for construction field offices and similar short-term uses.
4. Utility and service areas
Rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment, utility areas, and trash enclosure or storage areas, require
concealment or screening to hide them from view from adjacent pedestrian walkways and thoroughfares. The form
of concealment or screening must be architecturally consistent or integral to the host structure. This does not
apply to roof-top mounted photovoltaic solar panel systems, though any panels must have antireflective coatings.
271-18.5 D. Parking
1. Required parking spaces
The cumulative total of parking for the PD 17 site is as follows.
Commented [SB22]: Why require ground-mounted
solar panels to be hidden? That will shade them and
make them their deployment impossible. That seems
odd, as the Town allows ground-mounted solar in all
residential districts
11
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Use Motor vehicle parking (range) Bicycle parking
Residential: studio unit 0.05 to 0.25 spaces/unit ≥61 secure or short-term space / residential
building 6 units
≥100 in bike storage facility
Residential: 1 bedroom unit 0.05 to 0.25 spaces/unit
Residential: 2 bedroom unit 0.05 to 0.5 spaces/unit
Non-residential (all uses) 0.05 to 0.5 spaces / 500’² GFA ≥1 short-term space / 2000 ft² GFA
Public transit stop n/a ≥4 short-term spaces/stop
• A minimum of at least 75 total spaces motor vehicle spaces are required
• Parking space count may include dedicated spaces for car/bicycle sharing and charging.
• Motor vehicle space size: 8.5’ x 18’ clear rectangle area for on-street perpendicular, 7-8’ x 22’ for on-street parallel.
• Secure bicycle space: bicycle locker, dedicated space in a garage, anchored rack space with overhead protection from the elements,
andor other fully enclosed or secure areas.
• Short-term bicycle space: anchored rack space.
On-thoroughfarestreet parking spaces may count towards required parking.
Two motorcycle parking spaces (each space ≥4.25’ x 7’) may count as one motor vehicle parking space.
2. Off-street parking lot location
Off-street surface parking may be along streets.
3. Off-street parking lot design
Building siting, landscaping, or architectural treatment must screen a parking area (not including an individual
driveway) from thoroughfares and residential areas outside of the PD site.
A parking area must have a sidewalk or paved walkway, to provide pedestrian access from nearby thoroughfares.
4.2. Parking surfaces
Parking areas must have a fixed impervious or porous surface.
Pavement edge must have a clear definition, using curbs or a different durable material. Curbing allowing water
runoff (rollover curb, or barrier curb with gaps) is preferable to curbing that traps stormwater.
5.3. Landscape area
A parking lot must have ≥1 landscaped interior island (≥8.5’ wide, ≥160 ft² area) for every 10 parking spaces.
A row of parking spaces must have a landscape island (or equivalent landscape area) at each end.
Commented [CB23]: PB comments associated with
parking:
-Consider a range that doesn’t start with 0 for motor
vehicle parking (min 75/max 160?)
-Indicate minimum bike parking (min 50?)
-Reference bike parking and bike sharing in one
location
Commented [SB24]: 1 bike parking space for every 6
units does not seem like enough.
Clarify that the standard applies to all residential uses
(repeat it on each line).
Commented [SB25]: Clarify the meaning of “along
streets”. Right now it reads like “off-street” parking is
allowed on streets, which cannot be the intent
12
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
A row of parking that is not interrupted by a landscape island must be ≤10 spaces long.
A landscape island should function as part of the larger stormwater management system of the PD site.
On-street parallel parking does not require landscape islands.
On-street perpendicular parking fully adjacent to a landscaped tree lawn or other landscaped area does not require
landscape islands.
6.4. Renewable energy
Any parking space (on-street and off-street, for any type of vehicle) may have an electric vehicle charging station.
≥5% of off-street parking spaces will be provided with electric vehicle charging stations. at project
opening. ≥20% of off-street parking spaces must have utility provisions for future electric vehicle
charging stations. A solar carport may cover any off-street parking space.
271-18.5 E. Landscaping
1. Tree classes
Street tree refers to trees in a tree lawn or tree well alongside a street or traffic island.
Canopy trees and short trees refer to trees in yards, courts, landscaping areas, open space areas, and similar
areas.
2. Thoroughfare tree lawns
A tree lawn area on a primary or secondary street must have ≥1 street tree every 20’ to 40’ along its length, with
an average spacing of ≤30’ along the block length.
A maximum of 25% of the trees on the entire site in PDZ 17 may be from a single tree species.
A parking lot landscape island must have ≥1 canopy tree for every 160 ft² of landscape island area.
3. Other Llandscape areas
Landscaped islands must have ≥1 canopy tree for every 160 ft² of landscape island area.
4. Other Landscape areas
A green, court, or garden (§ 271-18.43 B 2) must have ≥1 canopy tree for every ≤2000 ft² of contiguous open
space area. For ≤50% of all required canopy trees in other landscape areas, 2 short trees may substitute for 1
canopy tree.
4.5. Tree species for the required plantings
Tree species for required plantings must have these traits.
Native or adapted to upstate New York (USDA hardiness zone 5a, 5b, 6a).
Not invasive (according to the most recent Tompkins County Regional Invasive Species and Worst
Invasive Species lists), or species with known parasites or pathogens including ash and hemlock.
Follow requirements for allowed or prohibited tree species in Town zoning regulations, if applicable. Street tree
species must also have these traits:
Commented [SB26]: Use a different standard,
because “project opening” is too vague. Replace it with
“”by the time of the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy”?
Commented [SB27]: Parking lot standards need to be
under their own heading, (as with Maplewood I), not
lumped in under the Thoroughfare section
Commented [SB28]: Only “green” is listed in the cited
section, although I think “court” and “garden” should be
listed in the cited section, too
13
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Mature height of ≥30’ except where restricted by fire access requirements.
A crown that can grow to shade a sidewalk and street.
Downward-oriented root system.
Salt tolerant.
Not brittle, or prone to dropping heavy fruit.
Canopy tree species must have a mature height of ≥40’ except where restricted by fire access requirements.
Short tree species must have a mature height of ≥20’.
A street tree or canopy tree planting must have a diameter at breast height (DBH) of ≥2”. A short tree planting
must have a DBH of ≥1.5”.
5.6. Other landscaping requirements
Exposed ground surfaces must have groundcover planting or mulch to cover otherwise exposed soil.
271-18.5 F. Fences and walls
Maximum fence or wall height is 5’ in a front setback area and 8’ elsewhere.
Acceptable materials for walls include brick, stone, split-faced blocks, decorative blocks, cast stone, and glass
blocks.
Acceptable materials for fences include wood, composite fencing, or wrought iron, PVC/vinyl,or PVC coated/color
coated chain link (limited to water tank fencing as required by the City of Ithaca, or welded wire panels. This does
not apply to deer fencing, snow fencing, and temporary fencing for construction and short-term activities.
Barbed wire, concertina wire, and un-coated (galvanized) chain link are not acceptable. This does not apply to temporary
fencing for construction activities.
271-18.5 G. Signs
Signs must conform to then-current Town of Ithaca sign code (or successor code) standards for the following:
Attached signs on storefronts: standards for the NC-Neighborhood Commercial (or successor) zone
Residential and other uses: standards for the MR-Multiple Residence (or successor) zone.
271-18.5 IH. Outdoor Llighting
1. Light output
Photometric performance must conform to the then-current Town of Ithaca outdoor lighting law (or successor code)
standards.
2. Freestanding fixtures/poles
Height:
Neighborhood local streets: ≤16’
Commented [SB29]: Right now the law does not list
any setbacks.
Why are the fence/wall heights higher than those
allowed in Maplewood I?
Commented [SB30]: Chapter 270 does not allow chain
link fences. Why allow them in this PDZ? If allowed,
restrict their use to specific uses, such as a sports
field?
Commented [SB31]: Same comment
14
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Elsewhere: ≤12’
Design and location:
Pole design should have a distinct base, middle, and top.
Maximum form base/Sono tubeSonotube top is ≤4” above grade.
Poles must not block sidewalks or walkways.
3. Attached fixtures
Fixture design should be consistent with the architectural style and detailing of the host structure.
Sconces, gooseneck fixtures, and recessed fixtures are allowed. Wall-pack lighting is not acceptable.
271-18.6 Definitions
These words or terms have a special meaning in § 271-18 for this PD.
Apartment building (building type in § 271-18.5): Building with >3 dwelling units, vertically and horizontally
integrated, connected with one or more shared entries.
Artisan (use in § 271-18.3): Establishment or studio where people make art or products by hand, using handheld
tools or small-scale table-mounted equipment. This includes related sales onsite.
Average Grade Plane: Is a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at
exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes along the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established
by averaging the two lowest grade points and the two highest grade points on the exterior to establish the overall
building height.
Block (context of roads or thoroughfares): area bounded by thoroughfares, or a combination of thoroughfares and
barriers to continued development (examples: public land, waterway).
Civic building (building type in § 271-18.5): A building that accommodates a place of assembly, civic, or
community use.
Court (open space type in § 271-18.4): Open space for civic purposes, passive or active recreation, or
connectivity within or through the site. Building frontages spatially defines define a court.
Day care center (use in § 271-18.3): Establishment providing any of the following services, as defined by the
NYS Department of Social Services or its successor agency in the following or successor regulations, for all or
part of a day: child day care (18 NYCRR §418.1), small day care (18 NYCRR §418.2), school-age child care (18
NYCRR §414).
Dog Ppark: A park for dogs to exercise and play off-leash in a controlled environment under the supervision of their
owners.
Dwelling unit (use in § 271-18.3): An apartment, or a room or group of connected rooms, occupied or set up as
separate living quarters for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, bathing, and sanitation purposes.
Frontage: Area between a building facade and a neighboring thoroughfare or court, including built and vegetated
components.
Garden (open space type in § 271-18.4): Open space for a playground or resident community garden.
Commented [SB32]: Revise section cross-references
throughout once numbering is set
Commented [SB33]: Changed wording back to that
used in the Maplewood I law, because the NYCRR lists
“day care” and “child care” as two words, not one
Commented [SB34]: Why were the “Frontage buildout”
and “Garden market” definitions from the Maplewood I
law not included in this law? This law uses both of
those terms
15
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
Garden Market: (use in § 271-16.3) Sale of produce or value-added farm and food products (as that term is defined in
NY Agriculture and Markets Law §282(2), or its successor statute), or community supported agriculture (CSA) share or
farm-to-table.
Green (open space type in § 271-18.4): Open space for the resident or public community gathering, or passive or
active recreation, with prominent (≥50%) softscape or vegetative cover (such as lawn, trees, shrubs, plant beds).
Landscaping and/or street frontages define its space more so than building frontages.
Health/wellness practice (use in § 271-18.3): Establishment providing outpatient medical, medical allied health
care, or alternative medical services.
Park (open space type in § 271-18.4): Open space for recreation, including dog recreation, or aesthetic
enjoyment. Prominent (≥50%) landscape includes paths and trails, fields and meadows, water bodies, woodland,
lawns, gardens, and open shelters.
PavementSurface, fixed: Durable, fixed surface formed from asphalt, concrete, tightly spaced segmental
pavers, and/or similar durable materials, both pervious and impervious.
PavementSurface, porous: Durable surface allowing easy passage of water through pores. This includes
segmental pavers, open cell pavers, and similar products; and ribbon/double track driveways with wheel strips of
a durable pavement material. This does not include crushed stone, wood chips, dirt, grass, or other loose or
unimproved surfaces.
Place of assembly (use in § 271-18.3): Facility used mainly for public/resident assembly for worship, meeting,
or community purposes. (Examples: religious congregation, secular assembly, community center, common
house, amenity center.)
Plaza (open space type in § 271-18.4): Open space for resident or public community gathering, or passive or
active recreation, with prominent (≥50%) hardscape cover. Building and street frontages define its space more
so than landscaping.
Primary frontage: the area between the building or structure and the thoroughfare to which it is oriented.
Professional office (use in § 271-18.3): Establishment providing professional, administrative, clerical, or
information processing services.
Restaurant (use in § 271-18.3): Establishment preparing and selling food, drinks, and/or alcoholic beverages in
a ready-to-consume state, to customers onsite or delivery offsite.
Retail and service - general (use in § 271-18.3): Establishment selling or renting a tangible good or product to
the public, and/or providing a service to customers onsite.
Stubout thoroughfare: improved dead-end thoroughfare ending at the boundary of a development site, serving
as a provision for later extension and connection to thoroughfares and development beyond the site.
Thoroughfare: paved travel way with travel lanes for vehicles and bicycles, parking lanes, and/or sidewalks or
paths; and related infrastructure and/or amenities.
Transparency: building wall length occupied by functioning doors and/or windows ≥5’ tall.
271-18.7 Administration
271-18.7 A. Site plan
Commented [SB35]: Deleted “stubout thoroughfare”
because that term is not used in this law
16
For 12-17-24 PB meeting: Red-lined: Attorney for Town edits & PB recommended edits at 10-15-24 mtg
Blue-lined: Applicant team response edits after 10-15-24 PB mtg
A final site plan approved by the Town Planning Board pursuant to Chapter 270, Zoning, is required for
development in this PDZ zone.
271-18.7 B. Miscellaneous
1. Violations and enforcement
Any violations of the terms of this section shall constitute a violation of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and
shall be punishable as set forth in said ordinance and § 268 of the Town Law of the State of New York. Each
week's continued violation shall constitute a separate offense. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town reserves for
itself, its agencies and all other persons having an interest, all remedies and rights to enforce the provisions of this
section, including, without limitation, actions for any injunction or other equitable remedy, or action and damages, in
the event the owners or lessees of the parcels covered by this section fail to comply with any of the provisions
hereof.
If any building or land development activity is installed or conducted in violation of this section, the Code Enforcement
Officer may withhold any building permit, certificate of occupancy, or certificate of compliance, and/or prevent the
occupancy of said building or land.
2. Town Code applicability
Except as otherwise specified in this section, all provisions of the Town of Ithaca Code shall apply to all
development, structures, and uses in Planned Development Zone No. 17.
271-18.8 PDZ area
Area rezoned. The area encompassed and rezoned in accordance with this section to be Planned Development Zone
No. 1817 is described below. The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Ithaca is hereby amended by adding such district
at the location described.
Description of Area Rezoned to Planned Development Zone No. 17
All that tract or parcels of land situatedsituate in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, bounded
and described as follows:
ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situatedsituate in the Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New
York, being bounded and described as follows:
Legal Description to follow.
Greystar
Maplewood Phase II
Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: admin@whithamdesign.com 404 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca NY 14850
1
November 15, 2024
CJ Randall
Director of Planning
The Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Maplewood Phase II – Updated Preliminary Site Plan Review – Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Dear CJ and all,
On behalf of the project team, please find updated submission materials attached for the Maplewood
Phase II proposed project. With this submission, we are updating drawings and documents for
SEQR review and Preliminary Site Plan Review. We request that the Town consider these materials
as additional updated information and request to be added to the agenda at the December 17
Planning Board meeting to continue the SEQR review process.
The project proposes a redevelopment of the former East Hill Apartments with new construction of
apartment units for graduate and professional students at Cornell. This development will be an
extension of the existing Maplewood Phase I site, and it is proposed that a new PDZ be created for
Phase II to include the project area. Residents will share amenities and open spaces with the
existing Maplewood project. Maplewood Phase II proposes approximately 800 new beds, spread
among approximately 650 new units between six new residential buildings and a community center.
The project team is composed of:
• Greystar Development East, LLC – Sponsor/Developer
• CBT – Architects
• GTS Consulting – Traffic Engineers
• T.G. Miller, P.C. – Project Civil Engineers
• Whitham Planning & Design – Landscape Architects, Approvals & Project
Coordinators
This submission is intended to provide an update on the progress of design and planning for this
project. The updated materials included in this submission are as follows:
• Rendered Site Plan
• Updated Landscape Plans
• Updated Civil Drawings
• Updated SWPPP
• Parcel Consolidation Form
We look forward to our further conversation with the Planning Board and Town staff. Please let us
know if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Michele A Palmer
RLA, ASLA, LEED GA
Senior Associate
Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC
C101EXISTING CONDITIONSPLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
C102DEMOLITIONPLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
ABCDEFGTSTSTTSTT
C103UTILITY PLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
ABCDEFGC104GRADINGPLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
ABCDEFGTSTSTT
STT
C105DRAINAGEPLANSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
C105ASTORM STRUCTURETABLESSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
BCDEFGAC106ESC PLAN:MOBILIZATIONSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
BCDEFGAC107ESC PLAN:BUILDING D,E,GSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
ABCDEFGC108ESC PLAN:BUILDING A,B,C,FSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
ABCDEFGC109ESC PLAN:STABILIZATION PHASESCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/15/2024
Greystar
Maplewood Phase II
Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: admin@whithamdesign.com 404 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca NY 14850
1
December 9, 2024
CJ Randall
Director of Planning
The Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Maplewood Phase II – Updated Preliminary Site Plan Review – Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Dear CJ and all,
On behalf of the project team, please find attached additional updated submission materials for the
Maplewood Phase II proposed project. With this submission, we are updating drawings and
documents for SEQR review and Preliminary Site Plan Review. We request that the Town consider
these materials supplemental to those submitted on November 15 for review at the December 17
Planning Board meeting to continue the SEQR review process.
The project proposes a redevelopment of the former East Hill Apartments with new construction of
apartment units for graduate and professional students at Cornell. This development will be an
extension of the existing Maplewood Phase I site, and it is proposed that a new PDZ be created for
Phase II to include the project area. Residents will share amenities and open spaces with the
existing Maplewood project. Maplewood Phase II proposes approximately 800 new beds, spread
among approximately 615 new units between six new residential buildings and a community center.
The project team is composed of:
• Greystar Development East, LLC – Sponsor/Developer
• CBT – Architects
• GTS Consulting – Traffic Engineers
• T.G. Miller, P.C. – Project Civil Engineers
• Whitham Planning & Design – Landscape Architects, Approvals & Project
Coordinators
This submission is intended to provide an update on the progress of design and planning for this
project. The following describes the changes to the previously submitted materials.
SITE PLANNING
• Minor adjustments to building locations were made to allow for more space between
buildings and parking areas thus allowing for reduced retaining walls and improved sightlines
from units.
• An access road was added between D/E and C/F buildings per fire department request. This
also resulted in minor adjustments to building locations to allow for more space between the
buildings.
• An active recreation location plan was added identifying activity zones.
• Several parking spaces were removed to accommodate the above site changes. The total
number of proposed parking spaces on the site has been reduced from 161 to 155. Public,
Accessible, EV Charging, and Car Share parking spaces were not impacted.
BUILDING ARCHITECTURE
• The Residential Building Material Palette was updated. The materiality of Level 1 changed
from natural stone to fiber cement due to cost escalation.
Greystar
Maplewood Phase II
Phone: 607.272.1290 Email: admin@whithamdesign.com 404 North Cayuga Street, Ithaca NY 14850
2
• Building A was mirrored and rotated. The main entrance from Maple Ave shifted west (closer
to Phase 1) to provide an accessible entry from the main Maple Avenue walk/trail without
modifications to existing roadway grades.
• Building A was adjusted. We heard concerns about the height and massing of Building A as
related to Phase 1 adjacent building. The updated massing provides a better transition
between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildings by recessing the northwest corner mass and
stepping it away from Maple Ave.
• The use of glass in the residential building’s main entrances and study lounge curtainwall
was adjusted to reduce the total amount of glass and create a better relationship with the
vertical cement siding expression.
• The building paint colors were refined. A wood-tone color palette will provide more variety
and identity for the six residential buildings.
The updated materials included in this submission are as follows:
• Rendered views for visual assessment
• Updated building floorplans
• Updated building elevations
• Updated Site Plan
• Updated Traffic/Parking diagram
• Updated Fire Access plan
• Activity location diagram
We look forward to our further conversation with the Planning Board and Town staff. Please let us
know if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Michele A Palmer
RLA, ASLA, LEED GA
Senior Associate
Whitham Planning Design Landscape Architecture, PLLC
PLANNING BOARD11-15-2024
MAPLEWOOD II
ABCDEFGSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/26/20241 OF 2E24-09AS SHOWN11/26/2024IFD ACCESS PLAN
GCDEFCDEFSCALEDATE ISSUEDPROJECT #REVISIONS#DATEDESCRIPTIONCornell - MaplewoodPhase 2301 Maple Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850PRELIMINARY SITE PLANSUBMISSIONE24-09AS SHOWN11/26/20242 OF 2E24-09AS SHOWNIFD ACCESS PLAN
09-17-2024
MAPLEWOOD II
POTENTIAL PRE-FABRICATED BIKE SHELTER (100 BIKES)
09-19-2024
MAPLEWOOD II
BIKE RACK EXAMPLE (MATCH MAPLEWOOD I)
From:SenecaLakeGuardian<senecalakeguardian@gmail.com>Sent:Friday,December13,20243:26PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Letterre:SyntheticTurfProposalAttachments:SLGLettertoIthacaPlanningBoardresyntheticturf12.13.24.pdfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:Flagged**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearMembersoftheTownBoard,PleasesharethisletterwithaltmembersoftheBoardandenteritintoyour12.17.24meetingminutes.Thankyou,YvonneTaylorVicePresident,SenecaLakeGuardian1
PCBox333WatkinsGlen,NY14891senecalakeguardian@gmail.comsenecalakeguardian.orgTownofIthacaPlanningBoardRe:ProposedSyntheticTurffieldonGameFarmRoadViaemail:planning@townithacany.gov12.13.24DearMembersoftheIthacaPlanningBoard,SenecaLakeGuardian(SLG)isaNewYorkStateNot-for-ProfitCorporation50l(c)(3)andisdedicatedtopreservingandprotectingthehealthoftheFingerLakes,itsresidentsandvisitors,itsruralcommunitycharacter,anditsagriculturalandtouristrelatedbusinessesthroughpubliceducation,citizenparticipation,engagementwithdecisionmakers,andnetworkingwithlike-mindedorganizations.Weallhavearesponsibilitytodoeverythingwecantoprotecttheregion’scleanair,water,soilandhealthforgenerationstocome.SenecaLakeGuardianhashundredsofresidents,propertyownersandbusinessownerswithintheTownofIthacaandTompkinsCounty.WehavemanyconcernsabouttherecentproposaltousesyntheticturfonyourathleticfieldlocatedonGameFieldRoad.Asanorganizationfightingforcommunitieslivingintheshadowofmountainouslandfills,westronglyurgeyoutorejecttheproposalforsyntheticturfandutilizeasaferhealthieroptionforyourathletes,yourcommunity,andthosewhowillultimatelybeburdenedwiththewastefromtheturfonceitagesout.Thebottomlineis,nomatterhowyouattempttogreenwashtheproposal,youaretalkingaboutplasticfieldsthataregoingtocoverthenaturalground,andthatisanextremelyirresponsiblenotiontoentertain.Wewishtoremindyouofthemyriadofissueswiththisoption:•EnvironmentalImpacts:oWaterUsage:“Infill-free”“water-based”fieldhockeysyntheticturffieldsrequirewateringateverygame,contradictingclaimsofreducedwaterusage.AskCornellhowmuchwaterwillberequiredforthisfieldforeachplay.oMicroplasticPollution:Evenwithoutinfill,thesefieldsusetoxicchemicalsinblades,backing,shockpads,andadhesives,allofwhichcontributetomicroplasticpollution.•Athleticsvs.Sustainability:oTherelianceonfossilfuelstomaintainyear-roundathletics,especiallyinFebruary,isunreasonablefortheclimatewelivein.
•PCBox333Ig/JWatkinsGlen,NY14891Ifsenecalakeguardian@gmail.com/senecalakeguardian.orgoCollegesshouldprioritizestudents’healthandcommunity’senvironmentandlead•thewayinorganic,naturalgrassfieldmanagement.oPointoutwell-documentedtiesoftheuniversitywithfossilfuelinfluencesHealthRisks:oSyntheticturfposessignificanthealthriskstoathletes,includingexposuretoharmfulchemicals.WhyisCornellprioritizingthisrecruitmenttooloverstudentsafety?oEventheslightestdoubtaboutthesafetyofyoungathletesshouldpausetheuniversityfrompursuingthisproject.Collegerecruitmentoverstudents’safetyandenvironmentaljustice?Questionthefalse“anti-sports”nalTativetheychurnoutintheageofthewarmingplanet.Forallofthereasonsstatedabove,weurgeyoutochooseanotheroptionforyourathleticfields.Respectfully,JosephCampbellYvonneTaylorPrincipals,SenecaLakeGuardian
From:GarryBordonaro<gjbordonaro@verizon.net>Sent:Sunday,December15,20248:25PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:ArtificialTurfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:FlaggedBoard,IfounditdisturbingwhentheCityofIthacarecentlyapprovedCornellUniversity’splantoinstall“artificialturf’onseveralathleticfieldswithouthavingaprofessionalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)done.IwritetourgetheTownofIthacaPlanningboardtorequestanunbiasedentitytodoaproperanalysisandwriteacomprehensiveEnvironmentalImpactStatementoftheproposalbeforeplansproceedfurther.InabriefinvestigationIhavefoundtwocomprehensivereportsbyhighlyreputableorganizationswithnoconnectiontotheindustryreviewinglong-termrisksofusingsyntheticturf.OneisfromEnvironmentandHumanHealth,Inc.,titled“SyntheticTurf:Industry’sClaimsVersustheScience”(https://www.ehhi.orci/turf.rhp).Problemsrangefromheatofartificialturfbeing50-60degreesFahrenheithotterthangrasstemperaturestothepresenceofbenzeneand“forever”substanceslikePEAS(per-andpolyfluoroalkylchemicals).TheotherresourceisfromtheIcahnSchoolofMedicineatMountSinaiInstituteforClimateChange,EnvironmentalHealth,andExposomics(“PositionStatementontheUseofArtificialTurfSurfaces”,July5,2024).Thearticlecanbefoundonitswebsitewhichishttps://mountsinaiexposomics.orq/position-statement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turf-surfaces/.Thefindingsspeakforthemselves.Pleasereadandheedthewarningsbeforemoreathletes,referees,employeesandchildrenonplaygroundsareexposedtosignificanthealthhazardsthatmaynotsurfaceuntillater(suchasformersoccergoalkeepers’highincidenceofcancerbeingcompiledbyanassistantsoccercoachattheUniversityofWashington).Thankyouinadvancefortakingtimetoseriouslyreviewthelong-termhazardstohealthaswellastotheenvironment.GarryBordonarogjbordonaro@verizon.net1
From:DonBarber<sunnybrk@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,December15,20246:52PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Cornell’sApplicationtoInstallArtificialTurfonGameFarmRoadPropertyFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:Flagged**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownofIthacaPlanningBoardmembers,IwastheCarolineTownSupervisorfor22yearsandcurrentlyserveontheTown’sReviewBoardwhichhasresponsibilitytorenderoptionsforsubdivision,siteplan,zoning,andspecialusepermitapplications.IwasdisturbedthattheCityofIthacarecentlyapprovedCornellUniversity’splantoinstall“artificialturf’onseveralathleticfields.IwritetourgetheTownofIthacaPlanningboardtorequestanunbiasedentitytodoaproperanalysisandwriteacomprehensiveEnvironmentalImpactStatementoftheproposalbeforeplansproceedfurther.Ihavebeenmadeawareoftwocomprehensivereportsbyhighlyreputableorganizationswithnoconnectiontotheindustryreviewinglong-termrisksofusingsyntheticturf.OneisfromEnvironmentandHumanHealth,Inc.,titled“SyntheticTurf:Industry’sClaimsVersustheScience”(https://www.ehhi.org/turf.php).Thispaperdescribesproblemsoftemperaturefromheatofartificialturfbeing50-60degreesFahrenheithotterthangrasstemperatureswhichcausesoutgassingofbenzeneandPFAS“forever”substances.TheotherresourceisfromtheIcahnSchoolofMedicineatMountSinaiInstituteforClimateChange,EnvironmentalHealth,andExposomics(“PositionStatementontheUseofArtificialTurfSurfaces”,July5,2024).Thearticlecanbefoundonitswebsitewhichishttps://mountsinaiexposomics.org/position-statement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turf-surfaces/.Thefindingsspeakforthemselves.Pleasedoyourduediligenceandreadthesepapers.Itisimportanttoconsiderimpactstoathletes,referees,employeesandchildrenonplaygroundswhoareexposedtosignificanthealthhazards;someofwhichmaynotsurfaceuntillater.Thankyouinadvancefortakingtimetoseriouslyreviewthelong-termhazardstohealthaswellastotheenvironment.Sincerely,DonBarberFormerCarolineTownSupervisorCurrentCarolineReviewBoardmember1
From:BarbaraLewis<lewis.barbara13@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,December15,20242:17PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanning;SusanMulterSubject:OpposeartificialturfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:Flagged**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDearPlanningBoardTownofIthacaAsaresidentofIthaca,IsupportthepositionSusanMutteristakinginopposingartificialturf,bothbecauseofitsenvironmentalhazardstothecommunityandthehealthriskstotheathletes.IagreethatanEnvironmentalImpactStudyshouldbedonebeforetheplanningboardmakesadecisiononthisissue.Ms.Mutterhasthoroughlyresearchedandenergeticallyadvocatedthispositionformonthsnow,andIagreewithheroppositiontotheuseofartificialturfatCornell.BarbaraLewis215NCayugaStIthacaNY14850ForwardedMessageSubject:artificialturfDate:Fri,13Dec202421:01:22-0500From:SusanMutter<smulter(twc.com>To:planning@townithacany.govCC:Multer<smulterctwc.com>DearTownofIthacaPlanningBoardmembers,AsaretiredsocialworkerIhavebeenlivingintheTownofIthacaforelevenyears.ItwasdisturbingwhentheCityofIthacarecentlyapprovedCornellUniversity’splantoinstall“artificialturf”onseveralathleticfieldswithouthavingaprofessionalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(ElS)done.IwritetourgetheTownofIthacaPlanningboardtorequestanunbiasedentitytodoaproperanalysisandwriteacomprehensiveEnvironmentalImpactStatementoftheproposalbeforeplansproceedfurther.1
InmybriefinvestigationIhavefoundtwocomprehensivereportsbyhighlyreputableorganizationswithnoconnectiontotheindustryreviewinglong-termrisksofusingsyntheticturf.OneisfromEnvironmentandHumanHealth,Inc.,titled“SyntheticTurf:Industry’sClaimsVersustheScience”(https://www.ehhi.org/turf.php).Problemsrangefromheatofartificialturfbeing50-60degreesfahrenheithotterthangrasstemperaturestothepresenseofbenzeneand“forever”substanceslikePEAS(per-andpol.yfluoroalkylchemicals).TheotherresourceisfromtheIcahnSchoolofMedicineatMountSinaiInstituteforClimateChange,EnvironmentalHealth,andExposomics(“PositionStatementontheUseofArtificialTurfSurfaces”,July5,2024).Thearticlecanbefoundonitswebsitewhichishttps://mountsinaiexposomics.org/positionstatement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turf-surfaces!.Thefindingsspeakforthemselves.Pleasereadandheedthewarningsbeforemoreathletes,referees,employeesandchildrenonplaygroundsareexposedtosignificanthealthhazardsthatmaynotsurfaceuntillater(suchasformersoccergoalkeepers’highincidenceofcancerbeingcompiledbyanassistantsoccercoachattheUniversityofWashington).Thankyouinadvancefortakingtimetoseriouslyreviewthelong-termhazardstohealthaswellastotheenvironment.Sincerely,SusanMulter,M.S.W.,M.S.15PennyLaneIthaca,NY14850smulter(ätwc.com2
From:RoyalDonaldColle<rdc4@cornell.edu>Sent:Sunday,December15,20242:01PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:ArtificialsurfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:Flagged**wARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearBoard,Isupportthesuggestionthatmoreexpertopinionbesoughtconcerningtheuseofartificialturfonpublicgrounds.RoyColIePineTreeRoad1
From:PamelaS.Tolbert<pam.tolbert@cornell.edu>Sent:Sunday,December15,20247:44AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Cornell’sproposalforartificialturfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:Flagged**wARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownofIthacaPlanningBoardmembers,IamwritingtoexpressmyconcernsaboutCornellUniversity’splantoinstall“artificialturf”onseveralathleticfields.IunderstandthataprofessionalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)hasnotbeenmade.IwritetourgetheTownofIthacaPlanningboardtorequestanunbiasedentitytodoaproperanalysisandwriteacomprehensiveEnvironmentalImpactStatementoftheproposalbeforeplansproceedfurther.Thereareanumberofreportsfromreputableorganizationswithnoconnectiontotheindustrythatlistseriousdangersfromtheuseofartificialturf,includingonefromEnvironmentandHumanHealth,Inc.,titled“SyntheticTurf:Industry’sClaimsVersustheScience”(https://www.ehhi.org/turf.php),andanotherfromthelcahnSchoolofMedicineatMountSinaiInstituteforClimateChange(https://mountsinaiexposomics.org/position-statement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turfsurfaces!.)Pleasereadandheedthewarningsbeforemoreathletes,referees,employeesandchildrenonplaygroundsareexposedtosignificanthealthhazards.Thankyouinadvancefortakingtimetoseriouslyreviewthelong-termhazardstohealthaswellastotheenvironment.PamelaS.TolbertLoisS.GrayProfessorofIndustrialRelationsandSocialSciencesDepartmentofOrganizationalBehavior1
From:JenniferGemmell<jennifersroad@gmail.com>Sent:Sunday,December15,20245:54AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Fwd:artificialturfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:Flagged**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLjLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentIverymuchagreewithmyneighbor’sconcerns.Pleasegivethisissueaproperandunbiasedhearing.Thankyou.JenniferGemmell26PennyLn,Ithaca,NY14850ForwardedmessageFrom:SusanMuLter<smulter(ötwc.com>Date:Sat,14Dec2024at9:00pmSubject:artificialturfTo:Multer<smulter(ëötwc.com>Dearfriends,It’sawkwardwritingonsomethinglikethisinthemidstofvariousreligiousobservancesinthecomingdays,butIjust[earnedthatonTuesday,Dec17,therewillbeahearingonCornell’sadditionalplantouseartificialturfonGameFarmRoadintheTownofIthacaaswellasthe4locationsintheCityofIthacathathavealreadybeenapproved.(IhavereadbutnotconfirmedthatthatdecisionwithouthavinghadanEnvironmentalImpactStatementpreparedisnowunderlitigation).Ifyoucanmaketimetosendoneortwopointsabouttheproposaltoallmembersofthetownplanningboardallatonce,theywouldneedtobeemailedtothatboardtomorrow(Sunday).Seeemailaddressinletterbelow.Inhopeshelpful,I’mforwardingwhatIsenttothatboardlastnight.Ifyouchoosetocheckoutoneofthetworesourcesmentioned,youcaneasilyfindsomethingtosaytotheTownofIthacaPlanningBoardaboutdangerstohumanhealthaswellastheenvironment.Thanksforconsidering.Callifyouwantmoreinformation.Susan(607)738-4504ForwardedMessageSubject:artificialturf1
Date:Fri,13Dec202421:01:22-0500From:SusanMutter<smulterctwc.com>To:planningtownithacany.govCC:Multer<smulter(twc.com>DearTownofIthacaPlanningBoardmembers,AsaretiredsocialworkerIhavebeenlivingintheTownofIthacaforelevenyears.ItwasdisturbingwhentheCityofIthacarecentlyapprovedCornellUniversity’splantoinstall“artificialturf”onseveralathleticfieldswithouthavingaprofessionalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)done.IwritetourgetheTownofIthacaPlanningboardtorequestanunbiasedentitytodoaproperanalysisandwriteacomprehensiveEnvironmentalImpactStatementoftheproposalbeforeplansproceedfurther.InmybriefinvestigationIhavefoundtwocomprehensivereportsbyhighlyreputableorganizationswithnoconnectiontotheindustryreviewinglong-termrisksofusingsyntheticturf.OneisfromEnvironmentandHumanHealth,Inc.,titled“SyntheticTurf:Industry’sClaimsVersustheScience”(https://www.ehhi.org/turf.php).Problemsrangefromheatofartificialturfbeing50-60degreesfahrenheithotterthangrasstemperaturestothepresenseofbenzeneand“forever”substanceslikePFAS(per-andpotyfluoroalkylchemicals).TheotherresourceisfromtheIcahnSchoolofMedicineatMountSinaiInstituteforClimateChange,EnvironmentalHealth,andExposomics(“PositionStatementontheUseofArtificialTurfSurfaces”,July5,2024).Thearticlecanbefoundonitswebsitewhichishttps://mountsinaiexposomics.org/positionstatement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turf-surfaces!.Thefindingsspeakforthemselves.Pleasereadandheedthewarningsbeforemoreathletes,referees,employeesandchildrenonplaygroundsareexposedtosignificanthealthhazardsthatmaynotsurfaceuntillater(suchasformersoccergoalkeepers’highincidenceofcancerbeingcompiledbyanassistantsoccercoachattheUniversityofWashington).Thankyouinadvancefortakingtimetoseriouslyreviewthelong-termhazardstohealthasweltastotheenvironment.Sincerely,SusanMutter,M.S.W.,M.S.15PennyLaneIthaca,NY14850smultertwc.com2
From:SusanMulter<smulter@twc.com>Sent:Friday,December13,20249:01PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:MulterSubject:artificialturfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:FlaggedDearTownofIthacaPlanningBoardmembers,AsaretiredsocialworkerIhavebeenlivingintheTownofIthacaforelevenyears.ItwasdisturbingwhentheCityofIthacarecentlyapprovedCornellUniversity’splantoinstall“artificialturf”onseveralathleticfieldswithouthavingaprofessionalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)done.IwritetourgetheTownofIthacaPlanningboardtorequestanunbiasedentitytodoaproperanalysisandwriteacomprehensiveEnvironmentalImpactStatementoftheproposalbeforeplansproceedfurther.InmybriefinvestigationIhavefoundtwocomprehensivereportsbyhighlyreputableorganizationswithnoconnectiontotheindustryreviewinglong-termrisksofusingsyntheticturf.OneisfromEnvironmentandHumanHealth,Inc.,titled“SyntheticTurf:Industry’sClaimsVersustheScience”(https://www.ehhi.org/turf.php).Problemsrangefromheatofartificialturfbeing50-60degreesfahrenheithotterthangrasstemperaturestothepresenseofbenzeneor“forever”substanceslikePEAS(per-andpolyfluoroalkytchemicals).TheotherresourceisfromtheIcahnSchoolofMedicineatMountSinaiInstituteforClimateChange,EnvironmentalHealth,andExposomics(“PositionStatementontheUseofArtificialTurfSurfaces”,July5,2024).Thearticlecanbefoundonitswebsitewhichishttps://mountsinaiexposomics.org/positionstatement-on-the-use-of-artificial-turf-surfaces!.Thefindingsspeakforthemselves.Pleasereadandheedthewarningsbeforemoreathletes,referees,employeesandchildrenonplaygroundsareexposedtosignificanthealthhazardsthatmaynotsurfaceuntillater(suchasformersoccergoalkeepers’highincidenceofcancerbeingcompiledbyanassistantsoccercoachattheUniversityofWashington).Thankyouinadvancefortakingtimetoseriouslyreviewthelong-termhazardstohealthaswellastotheenvironment.Sincerely,SusanMulter,M.S.W.,M.S.15PennyLaneIthaca,NY14850smulter(twc.com1
From:WendySusanWolfe<ww16@cornell.edu>Sent:Tuesday,November26,202411:33AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:NotosyntheticturfFollowUpFlag:FollowupFlagStatus:Flagged**wARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLlinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentPleasedon’tletCornellinstallmoresyntheticturf-wedesperatelyneedtokeepplasticsoutoftheenvironment!WendyWolfe,TownofIthaca1
From:ear1421@gmail.comSent:Monday,December16,202412:44PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:OppositiontoSyntheticTurfInstallationforOutdoorFieldHockey**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentIamwritingtoexpressmystrongoppositiontotheproposedinstallationofasyntheticturffieldonGameFarmRoad,evenunderthedesignationof“infill-free,”“PEAS-free,”and“water-based”turfforfieldhockey.Whilethesemodificationsmaysoundlessharmful,theydonotresolvethefundamentalenvironmentalandhealthissuesassociatedwithsyntheticturfsystems.EnvironmentaLandPubLicHeaLthConcerns1.PlasticPollutionandMicroplastics:EvenwithoutinfillorPFAS,syntheticturfismadeofplasticmaterialsthatdegradeintomicroplasticsovertime.Theseparticlesinfiltratesurroundingsoil,waterways,andtheair,contributingtoagrowingmicroplasticcrisiswithlong-termconsequencesforecosystemsandpublichealth.AstudypublishedjustthismonthalsoshowsthatPEASandmicroptasticsbecomemoretoxicwhencombined.2.WaterUsage:Water-basedsyntheticturfforfieldhockeyrequiressignificantirrigationtomaintainoptimalperformance.Estimatesshowthesefieldsusehundredsofthousandsofgallonsofwateiannually.Thisisanirresponsibleuseofacriticalresource.3.PlasticLifecycleImpacts:Theproduction,transportation,anddisposalofsyntheticturffieldsinvolvehighfossilfuelusageandemissions.Thesefieldsalsohavelimitedlifespans(typically8—12years)andoftenendupinLandfillsorincinerators,compoundingenvironmentalharm.Theycannotbeeffectivelyorsafely“recycled”or“reused”asclaimedbyCornell.4.OutdoorHeatandUrbanImpacts:SyntheticturfabsorbsandradiatesheatatLevelsfarexceedingnaturalgrass,creatingunplayableconditionsinwarmweatherandcontributingtourbanheatislandeffects.Thisposesriskstoathletes’healthandincreasestheneedforcoolinginterventionsincludingwatering,furtherstrainingresources.SustainabilityinAthLeticsTruesustainabiLityincollegiateandcommunityathleticsbeginswitheliminatingsyntheticmaterialsinfavorofrenewable,naturaloptionslikegrass.Naturalgrassfields:•Sequestercarbon,reduceheatbuildup,andpromotebiodiversity.•Aresaferforathletes,avoidingtherisksoftoxicchemicalsandextremesurfacetemperatures.•RequirefarlessoverallLifecycleimpactcomparedtosyntheticalternatives.1
Furthermore,theportrayalofthis“water-based”turfasenvironmentallyfriendlyismisleadingandservesasaformofgreenwashing.Itdistractsfromtherootissue:theunsustainablepracticeofreplacingnaturallandscapeswithplasticsystems.ConcLusionIurgeCornellUniversity,asaninstitutionofhighereducation,toreevaluateitscommitmenttosustainabitityandreconsidertheroleofsyntheticturf—afossilfuel-basedproduct—initsenvironmentalefforts.Istronglyrecommendthattheuniversitywithdrawthisprojectproposalentirelyforreappraisal.(fCornellchoosesnottotakethisstep,IurgetheTownofIthacaPlanningBoardtoissueapositivedeclarationforafullenvironmentalimpactassessment.SuchadecisionwouldalignwiththesustainabilitygoalsofbothCornellUniversityandtheTownofIthaca,prioritizecommunityhealth,andsupportlong-termenvironmentalresilience.Thankyouforconsideringthisimportantissue.IhopeCornellUniversityandtheTownofIthacawilttakealeadershiproteinpromotingtrulysustainablepracticesinathleticsandinfrastructure.Sincerely,EmilyJernigan2
From:KirianneWeaver<kirianne.weaver@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,December16,20242:12PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Artificialturf**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentDearTownofIthacaPlanningBoard,MynameisRev.KirianneWeaver,andIamaresidentoftheTownofIthaca.Ithought,intheconversationaboutartificialturf,thatIwouldsharemyownpersonalexperiencesasanathletewhowaslikelyaffected.Iwasaprettygoodsoccerplayerinmyyouth,playinginHighSchool,college,andforTeamsUSA(18andunder)overseasonesummer.IwonthePegasusawardforbestfemaLesoccerplayerinNYC.IwassoexcitedasanathletewhenourHighSchoolputinastroturf-itmakesthegameclean,fast,andpredictable.However,Iamalsooneofthemanysoccerplayerswhofoundthemselvesyearslaterwithrepercussions.In2004Idiscoveredalumpinmyrightknee.Thesportsmedicinedoctorsaidganglioncystswerecommon,sowedidnothingforseveralyearswhileitgrew.Itwasn’tacyst,however,butatumor.Itwasascaryexperiencegoingthroughtheroutineoftestsandappointmentsatage35.Nooneinmyfamilyhaseverhadcancerbefore.Fortunately,itwaswell-differentiatedandeasilyremoved.However,atage49Istartedexperiencingarthritisinthesamelocation,andhopetogetakneereplacementsoonasmerelywalkingisoftenpainful.Idon’ttalkaboutthisexperiencemuch,butIthoughtyoumightbeinterestedtoheararealperson’sstory,andwantedtoaddittotheinformationyouarereceivingabouttheeffectsofastroturf.Itwasfuntoplayon,butifIhadknownwherethosematerialsweregoingwhenIslidmywayacrossthefieldafteranerrantpass,IwouLdhavewishedforgrassagain.Pleasemakedecisionsnotforourpleasure,butforourgood.Withthanks,KirianneWeaver.1
WrittencommentsubmittedtotheIthacaTownPlanningBoardForthemeetingheldonDecember17,2024Re:Cornell’sProposalforAthleticFacilitiesatGameFarmRoadbethanyojalehtomays,PhD(Sourceshyperlinked,withadditionalpeer-reviewedsourcescitedinendnotes)DearIthacaTownPlanningBoardmembers:Cornellhasreturnedwithanotherproposaltoinstallyetmoreartificialturf.Iurgeyoutodeliveracredible,evidence-basedreviewofthisProjectthataskstherelevantquestions,pursuesthemtotheirconclusions,andconsidersindependentscientificevidenceagainsttheapplicant’sowntestimony.Yourthoughtfuldeliberationsonthefirstphaseofthisproject,theMeinigFieldhouse,ledtoasplitdecisionofenvironmentalsignificance.Theproposalbeforeyounowraisesallthesamehealthandenvironmentalconcernscallingforapositivedeclaration,’aswellasaseriousnewconcernarounddueprocess.I.FailureofDueProcess:Abad-faithSEQRsegmentationmustberevisited.ThisprojectcannotbeconsideredapermissibleinstanceofSEQRsegmentation,astheapplicant(Cornell)originallyargued,2becauseitisfunctionallydependentontheMeinigFieldhouseProject’sdestructionofthewomen’sexistingfieldhockeypitch.AtyourBoardmeetinginNovember,CornellarguedthattheirnewproposedfieldatGameFarmRoad(a)mustbeartificialturfduetofieldhockeyregulations;and(b)mustbecompletedbeforetheFall2025fieldhockeyseason.3BothpointsareonlyrelevantbecausetheMeinigFieldhousewilldestroytheexistingwomen’sfieldhockeypitchoncentralcampus.Thus,theGameFarmRoadProjectcanonlybeconsideredthesecondphaseofthisaction,wherethewomen’sfieldhockeypitchisreconstructedatanoff-campussite.4Itisclearthatthesetwoprojectsaredifferentphasesofthesameaction,andmustbeconsideredassuchforpurposesofenvironmentalreview.NYStateLawspellsthisout:“Ifanactionconsistsofmultiplephases,setsofactivities,orifseparateagenciesareinvolved,SEQRrequiresagenciesjointlyconsiderthesecumulativeimpactsduringtheirreview.Segmentationofanactionintosmallercomponentsforanindividualreviewcontradictstheintentofthelawandmayresultinlegalaction.”ThedegreetowhichCornellnowpressurestheBoardtogreenlightanotherartificialturffieldontheir(Cornell’s)ownrushedtimelineisthesamedegreetowhichtheyviolatetheirtestimonythatthetwoprojectsareindependent.5Fromacitizen’sperspective,thismovebyCornellrevealsanunsettlingpowerimbalance.NotonlywastheiroriginalSEQRsegmentationapparentlyarguedinbadfaith,butCornellseemswillingtogambletheirfieldhockeyseasonontheirconfidencethattheycanpushthroughthesecondphase
ofthisactionwithapositivedecisionforanotherartificialturffieldwithoutenvironmentalreview.TheymakethisgambleinspiteofthefactthatmorethanoneTownPlanningBoardmemberindicatedtheirsupportforapositivedeclarationofenvironmentalsignificanceonthefirstphaseofthisproject(Meinig),inspiteofanactivelawsuit,andinspiteofhistoriclevelsofconcernaboutartificialturfexpressedbycommunitymembersandtheirownscientists.6TheTownPlanningBoardmustrevisittheSEQRsegmentationtoupholdtheintegrityofenvironmentalreviewandconsiderthefullscopeofenvironmentalimpactforallphasesofthisproject.Itisintheathletes’ownintereststoconductanadequateenvironmentalreview.LesttheBoardfeelpressuredbytheapplicant’sinternalrequirementsaroundtheirfieldhockeyseason,letusrememberthatitistheapplicant’sresponsibilitytoplanmultiplephasesofanactioninarealisticmannersoastonotholdthePlanningBoardhostagetoabad-faithtimelineofallegedly“independent”projects.II.Essentialclarifications:TheTownPlanningBoardbearsaresponsibilitytoseekconclusiveanswerstothekeyquestionsatstake.Pleaseensurethatthefollowingconcernsarejjjyaddressedbytheapplicant,andf.ujjyconsideredinlightofindependentscientificevidenceontheirpotentialforadverseenvironmentalimpact:(1)Productspecifications.Asktheapplicanttodeterminewhichproductstheywillusefortheirartificialturffield(s),providetheproductspecifications,andpresentindependentthird-partytestingdataontoxinsincludingPFASandheavymetals.Informedenvironmentalreviewcannotproceedintheabsenceofthatdata.7(2)ClarifyPFAS-freeclaims.Asktheapplicanttounambiguouslyanswerthequestion,“WillallcomponentsofyourartificialturfproductbePFAS-free?”AttheNovemberBoardmeeting,CornellstatedtheirproductwillmeettheNYCarpetLaw,implyingitwillnotcontainPFAS.8TheymadethesameargumentfortheMeinigFieldhouseProject,butthereisambiguityaround(a)aPFAS-freeproduct,ontheonehand,and(b)aproductthatmeetstheNYStateCarpetLaw,ontheotherhand.Forpurposesofenvironmentalreview,whatmattersistheactuallevelofPFAS(andotherchemicalsofconcern)presentinthefield.(Itispresumedthatallprojectswillmeetrelevantlaws).PleasefocusyourdiscussionontheactuallevelofPFASintheproductanddonotallowthequestiontobedeflectedwithreferencestotheCarpetLaw.TheBoardmustconsidertheapplicant’sclaimsagainsttheavailableevidencethatallartificialturfproductstestedtodatecontainPFAS.9(3)MicroplasticsandtheDrainageSystem.Provideadequatescrutinyforanyproposeddrainagesystemthatisclaimedtocapturemicroplasticsreleasedfromthefield.TheMeinigFieldhouseProjectproposedadrainagesystemtocaptureparticlesonlydownto.212millimeters.ThecurrentGameFarmRoadprojectproposesafilterpracticetocaptureparticulatesdownto.025millimeters.Bothareinadequateforcapturingmicroplasticsfromartificialturffields,whicharemeasuredallthewaydowntonanometers—ananometerisamilliontimessmallerthanamillimeter.TheBoardmustalsoconsiderthatdrainagesystemwillmitigatemicroplasticsinhaledwhileplaying.’°
(4)Climatecost.Asktheapplicanttoaddresstheembodiedcarbonofapetrochemicalfieldandprovideevidencethattheproductwillactuallyberecycled,includingalistoffacilitiesthatcandoso.TheBoardmustconsidertheapplicant’sclaimsagainstthebackdropofallavailableevidencethatplasticcannotberecycled.TheCityofIthaca(COl)PlanningBoarddiscussed,butultimatelyfailedtoaddress,theconcernscitedaboveintheirreviewoftheMeinigFieldhouse.ThosefailuresledtoaPetitiontoRescindtheNegativeDeclarationandanactivelawsuit.Asthosedocumentsattest,TownPlanningBoardmembersarewelljustifiedinissuingapositivedeclarationofenvironmentalsignificanceforboththefirst(Meinig)andsecond(GameFarmRoad)phasesofthisproject.III.Conclusion:Pleaseprotectenvironmentalhealth,considerscientificevidence,andrecognizetheactualcontextofourlives.Wefaceapublichealthcrisisofexistentialproportionsduetotoxicity,pollution,andclimatechange.Theseconvergingcrisesarecausedbyfossilfuels,petrochemicals,andcarbonpollution:thestuffofartificialturfplayingfields.WerelyonourPlanningBoardstobeawareof,andintelligentlyresponsiveto,theirroleinaddressingthesecrises.Doingthings“thewaywe’vealwaysdonethem”acceleratesthecrisis.Itshouldbynowbeobviousthatourpreviousrisk-assessmentstrategiesaroundenvironmentalimpacts,microplastics,andPFAScontaminationhavefailedtoprotectpublichealth.Miserably.Wemustupdateourdecisionmaking.Inrecognitionoftheseoverlappingcrises,localAssemblypersonAnnaKelleshassponsoredAssemblyBillA3296A,Enactsthe“PFASdischargedisclosureact.”whichcouldnameartificialturffieldsassourcesofPFAS.ShealsosupportsNewYorkAssemblyBillA7158callingforamoratoriumontheinstallationofsyntheticturfandrequiringa“site-specificenvironmentalimpactstatement”foreachinstallation.’2Pleasepositionyourreasoninginthecontextofthisemergingwaveofpolicygroundedinthebestavailablescience,andissueapositivedeclarationofenvironmentalsignificanceforthisproject.WealsorelyuponourPlanningBoardmemberstobeintelligentlyskepticalofclaimsforwhichnoevidenceexists.ThereisnoevidencethataPFAS-freeturfinstallationexists;12thereisnoevidencethatartificialturffieldscanbereliablyorsafelyrecycled;andthereisnoevidencethatthetwophasesofCornell’scurrentathleticconstructionprojectareindependent.Thisprojectrequiresunified(notsegmented)environmentalreview,anditrequiresapositivedeclarationofenvironmentalsignificance.Threemonthsago,ourCityPlanningBoardfailedus.InthesameweekthatCaliforniafiledalawsuitaccusingExxonMobiloflyingabouttheefficacyofplasticrecycling,andnewresearchreportedtoxicPFASchemicalsinthehumanbodyfromthesameplasticsusedinturf,theCOlPlanningBoardapprovedCornell’sproposaltoinstallfakeplasticgrassfieldsonthepremisethattheywillbe“recycled”and“willnotcontainorbetreatedwithPFAS.”Asonecommunitymembersaid,“Itwas
magicalthinking.”IthacanowjoinsthegrowinglistofmunicipalitieswhohavebeendeceivedbyfalsepromisesofPFAS-freeturf.13TheirdecisiontoapprovefieldsmadeofpetrochemicalsandnamedforafossilfuelbaronarrivedastheUSdeathtollrosefromclimate-changeinducedHurricaneHelene.Whenwillwestartconnectingthedots?ENDNOTES1.Bøeta!.(2024).“EnvironmentalImpactsofArtificialTurf:AScopingReview.”InternationalJournalofEnvironmentalScienceandTechnology.(2024).Thisreviewpapernotesthatartificialturfsrepresentalargeenvironmentalissueintermsofwaste,microplasticpollutionandleachingofchemicals.Theauthorsanalyzeliteratureontheenvironmentalimpactsoftufcomponents.Theyconcludethattherearesignificantenvironmentalimpactsandsignificantgapsinknowledge,andspecificallycallformoreresearchoncurrentregulationsrelatedtolossofmicroplastics.Murphy,M.,&Warner,G.R.(2022).Healthimpactsofartificialturf:Toxicitystudies,challenges,andfuturedirections.EnvironmentalPollution,310,119841.Reviewsthegrowingliteratureonhealthrisksassociatedwithartificialturf,notingthat“thefinancialincentivesofmanufacturerstopromoteadoptionoftheirproductsmakethisaprimetargetformanufactureddoubtandscientificobfuscation[citingGoldbergandVandenberg,2021]:’Theauthorsreviewnumerousstudiesidentifyingchemicalsinartificialturf,includingpolycyclicaromatichydrocarbons(PAHs),phthalates,andPFAS,whichareknowncarcinogens,neurotoxicants,mutagens,andendocrinedisruptors.Theynotethatfewstudieshavelookeddirectlyathealthoutcomesofexposuretothesechemicalsinthecontextofartificialturf,butthatecotoxicologystudieshaveidentifiedriskstoorganismswhosehabitatshavebeencontaminatedbyartificialturfand/orcrumbrubberleachate.2.Earlierin2024,CornellUniversityrequestedaSEQRsegmentationfortheGameFarmRoadprojecttobedecoupledfromtheMeinigFieldhouseProject.Atthetime,Cornellarguedthatthesetwoprojectswereindependent.3.InNovember2024,CornellinformedtheTownPlanningBoardthatthewomen’sfieldhockeyteamhadplayed“theirlastgame”atthecentralcampuspitchandnowmustrushthecurrentproposalintimetoconstructthenewfieldintimeforthewomen’sfieldhockeyseason.TheyannouncedthesameinanAthleticspressrelease.4.Cornell’sAthleticsCoverageonOctober25,2024spellsoutthejointnatureofthetwoprojects:“TheBigRedcelebratedonthefield,takingpicturesandenjoyingits85thandfinalvictoryonDodsonFieldbeforeitsmovetoGameFarmRoadcomplexnextseason:’5.Iftheseareinfacttwoindependentprojects,thenthepitchatGameFarmRoaddoesnot“need”tobeartificialturftomeetDivisionIfieldhockeyrequirements,anditdoesnot“need”tobefinishedintimeforthefallseason—becauseCornellhasaperfectlyfunctionalfieldhockeyfieldoncentralcampusrightnow.IftheBoard’sreviewcontinuesonthepretenseofSEQRsegmentation,thenitisinappropriatefortheapplicanttoraisethosespecificconcernsanditisinappropriatefortheBoardmemberstoconsiderthem.
6.AsbothTownandCityofIthacaPlanningBoardmembersstressedinearlierdeliberations,theBoardshavereceivedhistoricvolumesofcredible,evidence-basedconcernsfromcommunitymembers,includingexperts,scientists,andfacultymembers(andhereIciteonlyasmallselectionofcomments).Itisadisservicetothecommunity’sandscientists’legitimateconcernstorushthisprojectthroughapprovalswithoutanEIS.7.AttheProjectReviewCommitteemeetingonAugust12,2024,theCityofIthacaPlanningBoardmembersandstaffaskedtheapplicanttoprovideinformationincludingthefollowing:(a)“Whatistheactualmaterialandcanweseesomedataontheactualmaterialbeingused?Wereallyneedtoknowwhatit’scomposedof.”(b)“Socanweseespecificationsonthatproductandthedatatosupportthatthen?”[referringtotheapplicant’spromisethattheirproductwillcomplywithNewYorkStateLawaroundPFAS.J(c)“RecyclabilitydoesaffectSEQR.Canyougetaletterfromthemthatsaysthey100%recycle,becauseI’monlyseeingreuse—notjustthereisafacility,butdotheyactuallyrecycleitandturnitintosomethingelse?”Alsorequestedwasalistoffacilities.Pleasecontactme(bethanv.o.mavsgmail.com)foratranscriptionoftheirqueriesfromthePRCrecording.Theapplicantultimatelydidnotprovidetherequestedinformation,butforunclearreasons,theCityPlanningBoardwentforwardwithadecisionanyway.TheTownPlanningBoardnowhasanopportunitytopursuethesequestionstotheirconclusion.TheBoardshouldclarifywiththeapplicantwhatexactlythetestingrequirementsare(e.g.,PFAStobemeasuredinpptratherthanppm),andwhenyouexpectthetestingresultstobeprovidedinrelationtoadeclarationofenvironmentalsignificanceand/orsiteplanapproval.8.ThePlanningBoardshouldbeawarethattheremaybewaysforCornell’sproductsto“meet”theNewYorkCarpetLawwhilestillusingPFASinmanufacturing,containingPFASresidueinthefinalproduct,andrelyingonunjustified“recycling”claims.EvenwhileCornellleveragedthelanguageofthelawtostronglyimplythattheirfieldwouldbePFASfree,theystillproposedtouserecycledtirecrumbontheindoorfield,whichindisputablycontainsPFAS.9.Lauria,M.Z.etal.(2022).Widespreadoccurrenceofnon-extractablefluorineinartificialturfsfromStockholm,Sweden.EnvironmentalScience&TechnologyLetters,9(8),666-672.TestsforthepresenceofPFASinarepresentativesampleof51ATfieldsinSweden,andreportsPFASinallsamplestested.ResultsareconsistentwiththeearlierdatapublishedbyTheEcologyCenter.TheauthorsfindthatevenacursoryreviewofpatentspertainingtoPFASinAT“provide[s]evidencethatPFASareusedintentionallyinATproductionforavarietyofreasons,inadditiontoplasticextrusion.”EcologyCenter.Toxic“ForeverChemicals”InfestArtificialTurf.Oneofthefirstreports(notpeerreviewed)totestforthepresenceofPFASinturfmaterials,extendingconcernfromtirecrumbinfilltoothercomponentsofartificialturf.NewJerseyDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(2023).TechnicalMemorandum:PFASinartificialturf.BrieflyreviewstheliteratureonPFASinartificialturf,confirmingitswidespreadpresenceandnotingoutstandinguncertaintyaroundthemigrationofthosechemicalsintotheenvironment.Lohmannetal.(2020)ArefluoropolyrnersreallyoflowconcernforhumanandenvironmentalhealthandseparatefromotherPFAS?EnvironmentalScience&Technology,54(20),12820-12828.ReviewstheevidenceandconcludesthatthereisnobasisforclaimsthatPVDFis“inert”ororshouldbeconsideredinabenignseparateclassfromotherPFAScompounds(asrepeatedlyargued,withoutevidence,bytheapplicantandconsultant).ThesamepointwasmadeinanexpertpubliccommentfromCornellProfessorEmeritusofSoilChemistryMurrayMcBride.10.Zhuetal(2024)“ACity-WideEmissionsInventoryofPlasticPollution:’EnvironmentalScience&Technology.February1,2024.
Introducingacomprehensiveframeworkforquantifyingplasticemissionsinurbanenvironments,thiscasestudyfocusedonToronto,Canadaidentifiesartificialturfasthelargestcontributortomicroplasticpollutioninthecityemitting237tonnesin2020—surpassingothersources,includingclothing.(TheapplicantfrequentlycitesmicroplasticpollutionfromclothingtoinappropriatelydistractthePlanningBoard’sconversationfromartificialturf.)(CitedanddiscussedinZWIpubliccomments,amongothers.)DeHaanetal.(2023)“TheDarkSideofArtificialGreening:PlasticTurfsasWidespreadPollutantsofAquaticEnvironments:’EnvironmentalPollution,334(2023):122094.Thisstudyfoundthatupto15%ofthelargermicroplasticpiecesintheenvironmentcomefromartificialturfinseawatersnearBarcelona.ThisfindingcontributedtotheUniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara’sdecisiontochoosenaturalgrassoverartificialturf,supportedbytheCaliforniaCoastalCommission,onDecember13,2023.(CitedanddiscussedinZWIpubliccomments,amongothers.)Huaetal(2024).“EnvironmentalRisksofBreakdownNanoplasticsfromSyntheticFootballFields.”EnvironmentalPollution.NotethatthisresearchwasfocusedonEPDMgranules(whichwillnotbepresentintheproposedGameFarmRoadfieldwithoutinfill),butalsofoundnanoplasticsfromtheinnermaterials.Inhalation.Salthammer(2022).“MicroplasticsandtheirAdditivesintheIndoorEnvironment.”AngewandteChemieInternationalEdition,134:32.Thisreviewsresearchonindoorpollutionincluding(amongothersources)artificialturf,bothartificialgrassandrubbermats.Itobservesthatduetotheintensivemechanicalstressduringsportactivity,veryhighconcentrationsofairborneparticlesareoftenmeasured.The2022reviewbyMurphy&WarnercitedinEndnote1reviewthattoofewstudieshaveattemptedtoestimatehumanexposurefrominhalationandingestionofartificialturfparticulatematter,notingthathumanepidemiologyandlaboratorytoxicitystudiesarenecessary“tobridgethegapbetweentheestablishedpresenceandreleaseofhazardouschemicalsbyartificialturfandthecurrentexposureestimates.”11.AlthoughthisBillappliestoartificialturfwithrubbercrumbinfihl,thereissufficientevidenceformicroplasticspollutionandPFAScontaminationtocallforasimilarEISrequirementforanyartificialturfinstallationonthebasisoftheplasticgrassalone.12.Seethepeer-reviewedacademicarticlesandgovernmentpublicationscitedinEndnote9.IfevidenceforaPFAS-freeartificialturffieldexists,thenwhydidn’tCornell’sconsultantMr.Peterscitethatevidenceinhis“researchsummary”totheplanningboardsfortheMeinigFieldhouseProject?Instead,hecitestestingfromanothermunicipality(Portsmouth)thatalsorequired“PFAS-free”turf—butthendiscoveredtheturftheyinstalledactuallycontainedPFAS.Whydidn’ttheapplicantprovidetheirproductspecificationsanddatademonstratingthattheirproductwillinfactbePFAS-free,asPlanningBoardmembersandstaffstatedwouldbenecessaryfortheirenvironmentaldetermination?13.OthermunicipalitieswhohaverequestedPFAS-freeturfbutreceivedaproductwithPFAS:•SouthPhilly:Gambacorta,DavidandLaker,Barbara.“CityOfficialsBelievedaNewSouthPhillyTurfFieldwasPFAS-Free.NotTrue,ExpertsSay.”ThePhiladelphiaInquirer.February23,2024.•Portsmouth,NH.“Ourcommunityhasbeendeceived:’Theycommissioneda“PFAS-free”fieldandreceivedonethatwastestedandconfirmedtocontainmultiplePFASchemicals.ThiswasthetestingcitedinjayPeters’Haley&Aldrich“researchsummary.”
•HarvardWestlake,CA.AnexpertcommentaryfromPEERonthatBoard’sdecisionrefuteseachofthenegativedeclarationsofenvironmentalsignificance,includingthefactthattheturffieldwaspromisedtobe“PFAS-free.”TheaboveexamplesarealsocitedinZWIpubliccomment,withexpertcommentaryandtestresults.
From:MarthaRobertson<martha.o.robertson@gmail.com>Sent:Tuesday,December17,202412:37AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningCc:CiRandall;ChrisBalestraSubject:Notjustonehockeyfield:Cornell’sproposed“AthleticsComplex”ismostlyartificialturfAttachments:AthleticsMasterPlan-mapdetailJune2015.pdf**WARNING**ThisemaiLcomesfromanoutsidesource.PLeaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspLeasecontacttheITdepartmentDecember17,2024TotheTownofIthacaPlanningBoard:IwouldliketoaddressyouinpersonbutIhaveaconflictatthetimeofyourmeetingtonight.Ifitispossibleformystatementtobereadaloudintothemeetingrecord,Iwouldbeverygrateful.AsaTompkinsCountyLegislatorfor20years,Iknowhowdifficultitistojugglecompetingclaimswhenmakingdecisionsthatimpactourcommunity,soIdeeplyappreciateyourdedicationto“gettingitright.”ThankyouverymuchforyourtimeinhearingthemanyconcernsexpressedbyourneighborsconcerningCornell’sapplicationtoconstructanartificialturfhockeyfieldadjacenttoGameFarmRd.ItiscriticalthatthisproposalbeconsideredinthecontextofCornell’slong-termplansfortheland.HowonehockeyfieldisbuiltwillsetaprecedentthatCornellwillusemanytimesover.TheattacheddiagramisfromCornell’s“GameFarmRoadAthleticComplexFacilitiesMasterPlan,”datedJune2015,whichwasdescribedina11/12/24memotoyoubySeniorPlannerChrisBalestraas“recentlydiscoveredonCornell’swebsite.”Thismap(p.7oftheplan)showsthatthecurrentproposalisjustonepieceofaneventualcomplexthatwillnearlycovertheentirefieldbetweenGameFarmRd.andthehousingtothewest.Youshouldbeawarethat:•Mostofthefuturefieldsareidentifiedas“syntheticturf.”•Atleastoneofthefieldsidentifiedasnaturalgrassinthisdiagramisnowslatedtobereplacedifthecurrentproposalisapproved.•AsignificantFieldHouse,parking,andinteriorroadsarealsoplanned.Althoughtherehavealreadybeenchangestothisplan(e.g.,placementoftherecently-builtbaseballfieldanditsfieldhouseissomewhatdifferent),themessageisclear.Cornellplanstocovermostoftheseformerly-agriculturalacreswithhighlycontroversialartificialplasticmaterials.Thisisnotjustaboutonehockeyfield.YouhavealreadyseparatedthecurrentproposalfromtheMeinigFieldhouseproject,adecisionthatisbeingcalledintoquestionbymany.Itwouldbeanevengreatermistaketoconsiderthehockeyfieldwithoutexaminingthefullbuild-outthatCornellisplanning.This“segmentation”wouldviolatethespiritofSEQR-ifnotalsothelaw.Iwon’ttakeyourtimetorepeatthemanydeepconcernsthatthepublichasalreadyexpressedtoyou.Iwill,however,pointoutthatyourownConservationBoardraisesseriousconcerns,callsita“plasticcarpet,”andopposesapprovalofthesketchplansforthisproject(letterdated11/8/24).ScienceisjustbeginningtoscratchthesurfaceinunderstandingthedangersofPFAS’sandmicroplasticsinourwater,air,andbodies.Nobodyisopposingconstructionofthisathleticscomplex;we’reonlyopposedtousingplasticcarpettodoit.1
.fl-:.;o‘7•,f1.C’2Thesefieldswillbeherefordecades.GenerationsofCornell’sathletesandourneighborswillbeaffectedbyyourdecision.Pleaserejectthisplasticcarpet.Thankyouforlistening.MarthaRobertsonRetiredTompkinsCountyLegislator1655EllisHollowRd.607-592-3119---..-.-.‘-.?•.•.I452
115kV Transmission Lines —These existing lines consist of a dou
ble row of transmission lines mounted on paired wood poles,and
extend from Pine Tree Road through the site to the southeast to a
point near the intersection of Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow
Road.These transmission lines essentially bisect the site and limit
uses around and under them.Through a preliminary analysis and
many discussions,it was determined that the plan would recom
mend relocating the lines to the north along the Cascadilla Creek
corridor at a strategic point in the plan development.This will
provide flexibility in the development of the plan and will be a
long-term solution for the project.
Pine Tree Road Improvements —It is understood that the Town
of Ithaca,in cooperation with Cornell,will be implementing
improvements to Pine Tree Road,including replacement of the ex
isting bridge that currently serves the East Ithaca Recreation Way,
and a new multi-use path along the west side of Pine Tree Road
that will provide a direct and safe pedestrian/bike connection
from Route 366 to Mitchell Avenue and the Recreation Way trail:
These improvements are vital to providing a strong pedestrian and
bicycle connection from the Main Campus to the new Game Farm
Road Athletics Complex.
Campus Plait
From the existing conditions inventory,analysis,program de
velopment and goals developed in the initial phases of the plan
ning effort,alternative master plan concepts were developed
that addressed various layouts of athletic venues,circulation and
infrastructure improvements.These alternatives are included in
this report as Appendix 1.These alternatives were then vetted and
discussed in a charrette setting with the various campus stakehold
ers.From these discussions,a final concept plan emerged and was
subsequently refined and further developed.
The final ACFMP provides a complete and comprehensive plan for
a logical and organized arrangement of proposed athletics venues,
linked by important circulation and utility infrastructure improve
ments.
Improvements will be made in a way that embraces and strength
ens the existing features and character of the site,including the
natural areas and systems,and the dramatic views to both core
campus and the surrounding setting.The goal of the ACFMP is to
From:BarbaraHarrison<bcharrison0921@gmail.com>Sent:Monday,December16,20247:50PMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:OppositiontoSyntheticTurfInstallationforOutdoorFieldHockeyj**WARNING**Thisemailcomesfromanoutsidesource.Pleaseverifythefromaddress,anyURLLinks,and/orattachments.AnyquestionspleasecontacttheITdepartmentIamwritingtoexpressmystrongoppositiontotheproposedinstallationofasyntheticturffield,evenunderthedesignationof“infill-free,”“PEAS-free,”and“water-based”turfforfieldhockey.WhilethesemodificationsmaysoundLessharmful,theydonotresolvethefundamentalenvironmentalandhealthissuesassociatedwithsyntheticturfsystems.EnvironmentaLandPublicHeaLthConcerns1.PlasticPollutionandMicroptastics:EvenwithoutinfitlorPEAS,syntheticturfismadeofplasticmaterialsthatdegradeintomicropl.asticsovertime.Theseparticlesinfiltratesurroundingsoil,waterways,andtheair,contributingtoagrowingmicroplasticcrisiswithlong-termconsequencesforecosystemsandpublichealth.AstudypublishedjustthismonthalsoshowsthatPFASanrniQropI.esticsbecomemoretoxicwhencombined.2.WaterUsage:Water-basedsyntheticturfforfieldhockeyrequiressignificantirrigationtomaintainoptimalperformance.EtimatesshhefieLdsusehundredsofthQusandsnfgallonsQfwternnvaiiy.Thisisanirresponsibleuseofacriticalresource.3.PLasticLifecycteImpacts:Thpructinsportation,andclisposalqfsyntheticturffields,involvehighfosiltueIusage.andemissions.,Thesefieldsalsohavelimitedlifespans(typically8—12years)andoftenendupinlandfillsorincinerators,compoundingenvironmentalharm.TheycannQt.beeffectivelyorsafely“recycled”or“reused”asclaimedbyCornell.4.OutdoorHeatandUrbanImpacts:Syntheticturfabsorbsandradiatesheatatlevelsfarexceedingnaturalgrass,creatingunplayableconditionsinwarmweatherandcontributingtourbanheatislandeffects.Thisposesriskstoathletes’healthandincreasestheneedforcoolinginterventions,furtherstrainingresources.SustainabiLityinAthLeticsTruesustainabilityincollegiateandcommunityathleticsbeginswitheliminatingsyntheticmaterialsinfavorofrenewable,naturaloptionslikegrass.Naturalgrassfields:•Sequestercarbon,reduceheatbuildup,andpromotebiodiversity.•Aresaferforathletes,avoidingtherisksoftoxicchemicalsandextremesurfacetemperatures.•Requirelessoveralllifecycleimpactcomparedtosyntheticalternatives.1
Furthermore,theportrayalofthiswater-based”turfasenvironmentallyfriendlyismisleadingandservesasaformofgreenwashing.Itdistractsfromtherootissue:theunsustainablepracticeofreplacingnaturallandscapeswithplasticsystems.ConcLusionIurgeCornellUniversity,asaninstitutionofhighereducation,toreevaluateitscommitmenttosustainabilityandreconsidertheroleofsyntheticturf—afossilfuel-basedproduct—initsenvironmentalefforts.Istronglyrecommendthattheuniversitywithdrawthisprojectproposalentirely.IfCornellchoosesnottotakethisstep,IurgetheTownofIthacaPlanningBoardtoissueapositivedecLarationforafullenvironmentalimpactassessment.SuchadecisionwouldalignwiththesustainabilitygoalsofbothCornellUniversityandtheTownofIthaca,prioritizecommunityhealth,andsupportlong-termenvironmentalresilience.Thankyouforconsideringthisimportantissue.IhopeCornellUniversityandtheTownofIthacawilltakealeadershiproleinpromotingtrulysustainablepracticesinathleticsandinfrastructure.Sincerely,BarbaraHarrison2
From:RegiTeasley<rltcayuga@gmail.com>Sent:Tuesday,December17,202410:22AMTo:TownOfIthacaPlanningSubject:Fwd:ArtificialTurffieldsatCornellCorrectedProtectwhatisleft,recoverwhatislostofthefairearth.WilliamMorris,“ArtandtheBeautyoftheEarth.”1881Beginforwardedmessage:From:RegiTeasley<rltcayuga@gmait.com>Date:December17,2024at10:21:09AMESTTo:ptanning@townithacany.govCc:RegiTeasley<rltcayuga@gmail.com>Subject:ArtificiaLTurffieLdsatCorneLLMembersofthePlanningBoard,OtherswillprovideyouwithplentyofinformationtoIndicatetheharmscausedbyartificialturfonourwater,ourlandsandourownhealth.Iurgeyoutorejecttheseprojects.SinceIsuspectyouplannottorejectthem,Iwiltaskyouthis:willyousignthefollowingstatement?“IamconvincedthattheseartificialfieldswilLcausenoharmtoourwaters,lands,wildlifeorourresidents.”Ifyouarenotwillingtosignthisdocumentandmakeitpublic,thenitisclearthatyouarefailingtohonoryouroathandyourdutytoserveandprotectthepeopleofthetownofIthaca.Ifthatisthecase,youshouldbeheldtoaccount.Sincerely,RegiTeasleyIthaca,NYProtectwhatisleft,recoverwhatislostofthefairearth.WilliamMorris,“ArtandtheBeautyoftheEarth.”18811
From:202?Pine?Tree?Rd.Jeff?ZornSincerely,?no?when?the?answer?is?yes.”?I?think?that?statement?speaks?for?itself.concerned?right?now?that?members?of?this?board?are?trying?to?find?reasons?to?say"I'mVeri
zon?as?made?clear?by?his?opening?statement?at?the?last?meeting:?chairperson?Wilcox?recused?himself?from?the?vote?due?to?his?bias?in?favor?ofcommunity?(to?match?additional?input?from?Verizon).?It?woul
d?also?be?good?ifHopefully?the?board?will?allow?additional?input?from?the?affected?Ithaca?Town?source?who?has?the?interests?of?the?people?of?Ithaca?at?heart.is?in?the?pocket?of?the?telecom?industry?a
nd?cannot?be?trusted?as?an?unbiasedSecond,?as?is?now?clear,?the?supposedly?independent?consultant,?William?Johnson,?matter.a?multi-billion?dollar?company?has?the?resources?to?offer?real?proof?on?such
?aintrusive?(not?less?costly?or?less?inconvenient?for?them)?means?possible.?Certainlytower,?rather?than?smaller?multiple?towers,?make?them?prove?that?it?is?the?leastmost?anyone?knows,?assertion?is?no
t?the?same?as?proof.?If?Verizon?wants?a?singleintrusive?means?possible?to?fill?in?a?service?gap,?they?only?made?that?as?a?claim.?As?that?the?installation?of?the?single?tower?was?the?least
prove First,?Verizon?did?not??earlier?vote?hinges?on?several?key?facts.Verizon?to?install?their?unnecessary?5G?tower.?The?need?to?overturn?turn?thatTomorrow,?Dec.?17,?I?urge?you?to?have?a?re-vote?on
?the?recent?decision?to?allow?Please?acknowledge?receipt?of?this?message.?Dear?Town?of?Ithaca?Planning?Board,?contact?the?IT?departmentfrom?address,?any?URL?links,?and/or?attachments.?Any?questions?p
lease**WARNING**?This?email?comes?from?an?outside?source.?Please?verify?the?Dec?17?Mee?????????????????????????????????????????Subject:Planning?Ithaca?Of?Town?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????To:Monday,?December?16,?2024?11:17?AM???????????????????????????????????????????????Sent:Jaazaniah?????????????????????????????????????????????
From:page?attached?to?this?email).?He?actually?closes?with,?"the?applicant's?lead?counsel,?Jared?Lusk!?(I?also?included?a?screenshot?of?the?section,?you?will?see?a?glowing?review?from?none?other?than
"Recommendations"actually?much?more?disturbing?than?I?thought.?If?you?scroll?down?to?the,?and?I'm?sorry?to?say?his?alleged?bias?iscorrect?LinkedIn?pageHere?is?the??I?apologize?for?this?error.differen
t,?man?named?William?Johnson?who?also?worked?in?the?telecom?industry.a?link?to?the?wrong?LinkedIn?page;?it?was?a?similar-looking,?but?completelythe?Town's?"independent"?consultant,?William?Johnson.?I
?unfortunately?includedI?need?to?make?a?correction?to?the?email?I?sent?yesterday?regarding?the?bias?of?Dear?Town?Staff?and?Zoning?Members,>?wrote:bobbybabjak@gmail.comPM?Bob?Babjak?< On?Thu,?Dec?12,?
2024?at?9:01?Ithacans?for?Responsible?TechnologyMarie?and?Andrew?Molnar?Thank?you?for?your?attention?to?this?timely?and?important?matter.?someone?like?him,?replace?William?Johnson?and?become?the?Town
's?consultant?for?any?futurepropagation?maps),?there?is?a?wealth?of?information?on?their?website.?We?respectfully?ask?that?he,?orthe?industry's?tactics?in?local?communities?(including?the?misleading?
use?of?yourself?further?onwireless?issues.?They?are?currently?working?with?several?town?Boards?in?NY.?If?you?want?to?educate),?works?full-time?with?towns?ontelecomsol.comconsultancy,?the?Center?for?M
unicipal?Solutions?(Syracuse?University,?and?over?thirty?years?of?experience?with?the?telecommunications?industry.?Hisconsultant,?Richard?Comi,?who?has?an?engineering?degree?from?West?Point,?an?MBA?f
rom.?Through?this?process?we?have?come?across?a?truly?independent filling?this?gap?in?servicesmall?antennas?would?be?a?less?intrusive?means?of independent?consultants,?and?been?told?that?In?our?own?q
uest?to?understand?the?technical?possibilities?here,?we?have?spoken?with?other?the?Town?to?replace?him.?We?urge the?Town?staff?and?boards?are?relying?so?heavily?on?this?person's?opinions.?connection?
to?Verizon's?lawyer?Jared?Lusk.?We?are?concerned?because?it?seemsthe?implementation?of?the?town?codes.?We?are?not?at?all?surprised?to?see?hisindirect?responses?to?questions,?he?certainly?does?not?see
m?to?be?an?advocate?forextraneous?biased?information,?changing?his?statements,?or?his?meanderingthroughout?the?cell?tower?review?process?with?the?Town?Boards.?Whether?includingwhile?perhaps?avoiding?
untruths,?has?seemed?to?show?bias?toward?Verizonhave?been?shocked?to?witness?the?way?that?the?RF?consultant?William?Johnson,We?received?this?letter?and?are?glad?to?see?that?someone?else?is?on?top?of?
this.?We??Comi?-?Richard?updated?6.2021.doc???????????????????????????????A Re:?URGENT?UPDATE:?William?Johnson?conflict?of?interest!!!?????????????????????????????????????????Subject:Rod?Howe;?Depaolo
?Rich???????????????????????????????????????????????????Cc:CJ?Randall;?Marty?Moseley;?Chris?Balestra;?DepartmentTown?Of?Ithaca?Clerks;?Town?Of?Ithaca?PlanningCodes;???????????????????????????????????
????????????????To:Tuesday,?December?17,?2024?11:59?AM???????????????????????????????????????????????Sent:?Marie/Andrew?????????????????????????????????????????????
This?is?unacceptable!?How?does?no?one?from?the?Town?know?about?their?previous proposed?"Sunny?View"?PWSF.?I?have?several?grave?concerns?about?thisI?live?at?106?Wiedmaier?Ct,?the?house?closest?to?the?
massively?intrusive?Dear?Town?Staff?and?Zoning?Board?members,wrote:>bobbybabjak@gmail.comAM?Bob?Babjak?< On?Wed,?Dec?11,?2024?at?11:49???stewards?of?this?sacred?land.?Do?not?let?us?down.serious?issue
s?brought?up?in?this?email.?We?have?put?our?trust?in?you?to?beI,?along?the?rest?of?the?Town?of?Ithaca,?eagerly?await?your?response?to?the?the?Board?can?have?a?legitimate?re-vote?on?the?site?plan.pres
ented?to?the?Board?and?reviewed?by?a?new?and?truly?independent?consultant,?thenCoddington?as?they?have?for?alternative?tower?sites.?Once?that?evidence?has?beenanalysis?for?multiple?small?cells?deploy
ed?on?existing?utility?poles?along?79,?Burns,?andattorney,?Jared?Lusk;?and?the?Planning?Board?reopen?its?evaluation?of?the?111consultant?and?replaced?with?someone?who?has?no?prior?connection?to?the?a
pplicant'sI?am?formally?requesting?that?William?Johnson?be?relieved?as?the?independent?clown?show!appears?to?be?in?bed?with?the?applicant’s?attorney!?With?all?due?respect,?it?looks?like?acoverage?gap
,?it?all?raises?serious?concerns.?And?now,?the?independent?consultantthey?did?for?the?alternate?sites—on?the?effectiveness?of?small?cells?to?address?the—not?just?the?opinion?of?their?engineer,?but?ac
tual?data-supported?propagation?maps?asPlanning?Board’s?inability?or?unwillingness?to?require?the?applicant?to?provide?evidenceabout?this?project,?the?refusal?to?allow?public?comments?on?the?day?of?t
he?vote,?and?theemployed?on?the?Planning?Board,?along?with?the?lack?of?notice?given?to?nearby?residentspatronizing?attitude?and?obvious?favoritism?toward?the?applicant?to?his?strong-arm?tacticsgovern
ance,?I?must?say?that?I’m?appalled?by?what?I’ve?witnessed.?From?Fred?Wilcox’sAs?someone?who?recently?moved?to?the?area?and?has?an?outsider’s?perspective?on?local?the?applicant's?lawyer?is?singing?his
?praises?on?LinkedIn!?!?conflict?of?interest.?How?can?he?maintain?the?basic?appearance?of?independence?whenrelationship??Why?did?Mr.?Johnson?not?recuse?himself?from?this?case??This?is?an?obvious
project,?from?the?actual?existence?of?a?"significant?gap"?in?coverage?(for?whichmisdirection.clearly?indicates?a?biased?view?in?favor?of?the?industry?and?morethis?about?voice?calls?only,?nothing?abou
t?other?things."?But,"We're?talking?Fortunately,?Susan?Brock?again?reminded?everyone,consideration.?All?of?this?is?totally?irrelevant?to?the?Town's?types?of?services."of?the?bandwidth?for?high-speed?
data?and?otherhave?the?other?90%?Mr?Lusk?described?in?a?lot?of?the?target?area,?and?notof?coverage?that?we're?going?to?be?dealing?with?that?outdoor?marginal?kindthis?gap?area,?map?in?this?particular?
gap?area....Without?something?innot?even?on?the?band....90%?of?the?bandwidth?that?Verizon?has?available?is10%?is?low?bandwidth?that?they?can?provide?to?their?subscribers;?the?otherlicensed?90%?of?the
ir?usable and?emphasizing?that?mid-band?is?"gap?areas?preliminary?report?that?Verizon?has?no?mid-band?coverage?in?the10/21?and?in?fact?did?the?opposite?by?highlighting?in?his?revisednot?do?so,??He?di
dnetwork").telephone?national?the?to?connected?are?that?landlines?and?fromto?calls?voice?make?and?receive?to?telephones?wireless?ofability??the?2nd?Circuit?Court?of?Appeals:?"theas?set?forth?by?consi
der?(only?thing?required?by?law?for?Ithaca?tothe?these?voice?calls?are?the?vast?majority?of?voice?calls?use?low?band,?andhave?made?it?clear?that?regarding?the?new?proposed?tower,?Johnson?couldIn?the?
discussion?supposed?expert.bad?look?for?atelecom?corporations?like?Verizon.?Either?way,?it's?a?for?the?benefit?ofdemonstrates?a?willingness?to?obscure?the?facts?it's?ignorant,?at?worst?itis?like?call
ing?climate?change?a?hoax!?At?best?to?RF?radiation?exposureexistence?of?adverse?health?effects?connected?PWSFs,?but?denying?the?veryto?be?discussed?when?considering?concerns?are?not?legally?allowedby
?thousands?of?studies).?I?know?health?his?purview?(and?proven?wrongto?save?their?industry,?but?clearly?outside?the?telecoms?have?been?pushingradiation?causes?humans,?a?viewpoint?was?his?opinion?denyi
ng?any?harm?cell10/3/24).?One?of?these?topics?email?to?Mr.?Johnson?from?Chris?Balestra?onitems?(as?outlined?in?an?resubmit?his?report?after?removing?all?thoseSusan?Brock,?requested?he?report?was?so?e
gregious?that?the?Town?lawyer,proposed?cell?tower.?This?specific?matter?at?hand?of?evaluating?Verizon'sone-sided?opinions?on?the?contained?a?number?of?extraneous?and?irrelevantJohnson's?initial?repor
t?Here?are?a?few?examples?that?I?believe?call?his?objectivity?into?question:also?picked?up?on?that.to?me?that?he?is?biased?in?favor?of?Verizon.?I?imagine?that?some?of?you?haveUnfortunately,?even?with
?the?limited?technical?knowledge?I?have,?it?is?obvioushe?is?fairly?embedded?within?it),?but?I?wanted?to?give?him?a?chance.?shows?thatLinkedIn?pagebiased?toward?the?telecom?industry?(a?glance?at?his?I
n?researching?Mr.?Johnson,?I?heard?from?those?familiar?with?his?work?that?he?isJohnson.consultant?hired?by?the?Town?to?evaluate?new?cell?tower?applications,?WilliamThe?issue?I?want?to?address?with?th
is?letter,?though,?is?the?"independent"?RFalarming?way?it?has?been?handled?by?Fred?Wilcox?and?the?Planning?Board.there?is?no?legal?definition?or?universally?accepted?determination)?to?the
In?another?instance?of?(and?small?cells?would?not?meetthey?can?rent?out?to?other?carriers?in?the?future?frequencies?that?occupy?90%?of?their?licensed?bandwidth,?and?create?a?spaceSo?while?Verizon's?o
bjectives?may?be?to?utilize?the?mid-range?band?constitute?evidence?of?a?significant?gap."the?applicant.?An?applicant’s?claim?of?need?for?future?capacity?does?notServices?operate?on?a?frequency?which?
is?not?the?frequency?most?desired?bygap?is?not?established?simply?because?the?applicant’s?Personal?Wirelesslandlines?that?are?connected?to?the?national?telephone?network)?A?significantability?of?wire
less?telephones?to?make?and?receive?voice?calls?to?and?fromthe?applicant's?personal?wireless?services?(the"a?significant?gap?in?address??toAs?per?Town?Code?270-219.R(4).,?the?purpose?of?the?proposed?
PWSF?isthe?issue?at?hand?is?not?the?objectives?of?their?proposed?site.?."?They?only?ever?use?language?like?"fail?to?achieve?the?site?objectives,"?but gapnever?stated?that?a?small?cell?strategy?would?
"fail?to?fill?the?coverageVerizon?has fill?the?coverage?gap.?In?fact,?throughout?this?whole?process,?"fail?to?achieve?the?site?objectives."?Notice?how?he?didn't?say?they?would?fail?toas?terrain,?foli
age,?and?coverage?area?as?their?reasons?why?small?cells?wouldreceived?a?statement?from?Verizon?engineer,?Wasif?Sharif,?stating?issues?suchpoles."?In?return,?they?onlytelephone?on?microcells?several?w
ith?achieved?becoverage?(can)?in?requested?more?information?on?whether?the?"gap?The?bottom?line?is?this:?At?the?10/1/24?Planning?Board?meeting,?the?Boardto?find?a?more?neutral?consultant?is?a?neutral
?party.?I?urge?the?Towntrust?that?the?"independent"?a?(in?my?opinion)?misplacedand?staff?are?making?decisions?based?on?concern?is?that?the?various?Boardshave?to?acknowledge?it.?However,?my?discerning
/knowledgeable?members,Board,?or?at?least?some?of?its?more?obvious?that?Thecalled?this?out?a?few?times,?and?I?hope?his?bias?is?so?Susan?Brock?hasI?was?happy?to?see?that?getting?the?pole?they?want.?Ve
rizoncurious?and?again?seems?to?support?the?idea?that?he?favors?silence?wastechnically?feasible,?and?Johnson?did?not?correct?him.?His?would?not?besurmised?that?the?consultant?concluded?that?small?cel
ls?(incorrectly)after?one?of?his?convoluted?explanations,?a?Board?member?meeting,not?the?Town's?issue).?Toward?the?end?of?the?Zoning?Board?poles?(again,in?the?case?of?a?catastrophic?weather?event?top
pling?utility?faileffective,?or?might?require?them?to?submit?more?applications,?or?could?follows?up?these?statements?with?caveats?that?they?might?be?less."?He?then installations?where?visual?impact?i
s?criticalsmall-cell?existing?shorter?structures,?distributed?antenna?systems,?andlocation?on?include?use?of?multiple?shorter?support?structures,?co-approaches?can?preliminary?report,?Johnson?even?wr
ites,?"Other10/21?revised?Effective?Prohibition?null?in?the?case?of?denial).?In?hisapplicant's?claim?of?least?intrusive?means?to?fill?the?gap?and?render?ancould?be?the?cell?tower?(a?core?question?in?
deciding?whether?or?not?theymonopole?cells?are?"technically"?a?feasible?alternative?to?amaterials?and?verbal?comments,?Johnson?repeatedlyIn?both?his?written?very?situation?the?Board?is?considering.in
?coverage?-?the?short?of?saying?that?they?are?also?used?to?patch?a?gaptrue),?but?he?stops?scenarios?in?which?small?cells?are?often?used?(alldiatribe?about?other?misdirection/distraction,?Johnson?goes
?into?a?long
those?objectives),?the?Zoning?Board's?objective?is?to?discern?whether?the??????106?Wiedmaier?Ct.Bob?Babjak?Thank?you?for?your?attention?to?this?important?matter.?Verizon?provided?for?everything?else.
?same?level?of?data-supported?evidence?for?the?coverage?of?small?cells?thatflopping?on?the?matter,?the?Board?needs?to?request,?no,?demand?theefficacy?of?small?cells??Especially?in?light?of?Mr.?Johnso
n's?constant?flip-towers?at?multiple?sites?but?then?accept?their?unsupported?opinion?about?thecalls,?communication?failures,?and?the?coverage?propagation?of?multiple?sizedfree?justification?for?not?u
sing?small?cells,?then?he?is?grossly?shirking?his?duty.If?the?Town's?"independent"?consultant?is?simply?accepting?Verizon's?evidence-?and?nullifying?grounds?for?an?Effective?Prohibition?declaration.?
means?to?remedy?the?problem,?thus?negating?the?need?for?a?giant?monopolesmall?cells?can?fill?the?coverage?gap,?then?they?would?be?the?least?intrusive?in?the?entire?review?process.?If
THE?key?point pressed?on?this?matter,?as?it?is?the?areas?with?the?highest?concentration?of?dropped?calls.?Verizon?needs?to?berefused?to?do?the?same?for?co-located?small?cells?strategically?placed?al
ongVerizon?has?provided?copious?graphs?and?charts?of?colorful?propagation?plots?monopole?that?exceeds?the?allowable?height?limit?by?over?100?feet.??is?a?A?GAP?IN?COVERAGE LEAST?INTRUSIVE?MEANS?TO?ADD
RESS
RICHARD ANGELO COMI continued…… .associated with telephony, cellular and PCS applications and permittinggoes well beyond the mere technology and operations of a company, and
includes the legal and procedural requirements to deal with operators as a true equal has resulted in gains for municipalities that they never expected. His knowledge communities from
making drastic mistakes, some of which would have been virtually irreversible. In addition, his ability hundred communities on Wireless Ordinances, Siting issues, and municipal leases.
He has prevented numerous virtually unique in the wireless consulting arena, as he exclusively serves local governments. He has worked with over a skills to a nationwide group on
independent municipal consultants. As a zealous advocate of local government, he is With his in depth knowledge of cellular, PCS and other wireless industries, he provides leadership
and organizational Utilizing his extensive industry background, he established a municipal consulting and master agent organization. /FounderOwner Present-Glenmont, New York 1995
THE CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS /COMI TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES EXPERIENCE REVIEW needs.Specific focus on determining training and development needs and implementing targeted
programs to meet development.Skilled in personnel/human resource development including training, career planning and organizational Skilled in budget preparation, analysis and subsequent
management to profit and cost standards. Fiscally accountable… managed with accountability operating budgets in excess of $17 million. Experienced in supervising craft, management
and support personnel. Able to manage multiple organizational units and priorities with efficiency and results. service to the users.Excellent record of accomplishment in managing
cost reduction programs while concurrently improving profitability in nine months.Skilled in business development; initiated new business reaching sales level of $3 million in 18
months and profitability, operations and distribution.line accountability for sales, marketing, finance, -Significant senior level management experience with bottom Management/Administration
Experienced in troubleshooting; strong skills in managing networks and complex system/line configurations. filed operations.-equipment requiring attention to detail, responsiveness
and accountability for inline management of systems including switches, interfaces and other -on experience in on-Practical, hands enhancements and implement to achieve results.Recognized
for ability to analyze system needs, determine appropriate technical and organizational including hardware, line systems and data/voice system enhancements. Excellent understanding,
from a practical use and technical perspective, of telecommunications systems Systems SUMMARY OF RELATED SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS 3079-(518)439 Glenmont, New York 12077 70 Cambridge
Road
RICHARD A. COMI *Received Bronze Medal for Meritorious Service and Army Commendation for Achievement Captain; Honorable Discharge; Vietnam Era Veteran 1971-1967 UNITED STATES ARMY,
MILITARY UNITED STATES MILITARY ACAMEMY, WEST POINT, 1967 Bachelor of Science SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, 1977 Masters in Business Administration EDUCATIONAL/SPECIALIZED TRAINING and
service levels.operations costs and concurrently improving service levels. Contributed to technical enhancement of systems, networks Recognized for accomplishments in planning and
implementing central office consolidations, reducing labor and network, 225 employees and budget over $8 million.In previous capacity as Director of Operations, Network Services Administration,
managed a 2 million subscriber switching technologies. Administratively responsible for staff of 365 and budget resource allocation of over $17 million. system involving 95 switches,
100K special services (private line, data, voice, 1.5 service and DDS) and various In most recent management capacity, assumed responsibility for operations, maintenance and general
management of Syracuse-Dial Service Supervisor Syracuse -Traffic Superintendent Upstate New York-Operations Supervisor Northeast and Central-Director of Operations, Network Services
Administration Northeast-Director, Network Operations, Maintenance During tenure, served as 1989-Syracuse and Albany, New York 1971 NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY and control.line responsibility
for budgeting -administrative, finance, customer service and operational units with bottom$3 million in annual revenues. Organized generatingDirected business operations employing
20 and technical operations.executive management staff with accountability for finance, sales, marketing, dealer services, customer service and overall market share. Developed distribution
base (dealer) and directed sales force management. Recruited and directed negotiated major contracts with vendors, suppliers and joint venture partners resulting in rapid growth, profitability
and five months. Brought to level of profitability in first nine months… exceeded sales objective by 42% in year one… up cellular phone service organization. Established cellular
system in -Retained to organize, launch and manage this start Chief Operating Officer-Vice President 1993-Delmar, New York 1990 CELLULAR ONE OF UPSTATE NEW YORK customer contracts,
purchase equipment to include new DSC600 and new PC LAN billing system.business as 100% owner; developed staff of 16 including management, technical and clerical support; negotiated
large Responsible for all aspects of established business including financial, management, sales and operations. Purchased President, Owner 1995-Glens Falls, New York 1993 GFCC (GLENS
FALLS COMMUNICATION CORP.) Page two RICHARD ANGELO COMI
My name is Richard A. Comi. I am owner of Comi Telecommunication Services and co Virginia Municipal League. Westthe preparation of ordinance and review of applications and site construction,
when permitted, are endorsed “services” of including inspecting the construction of the site when appropriate. The “siting process” used by CMS, including of wireless siting applications,
thousandshave further reviewed hundreds of other wireless ordinances. I have reviewed I have drafted and designed wireless siting ordinances that are now in effect in hundreds of
communities, and subjects for scores of individual local governments.of Counties; and numerous other municipal counties and groups. By request I have also conducted seminars on these
The New Mexico League of Cities; the New Mexico Association e Florida Municipal League; Association of Towns; Thfacilities. Some of these organizations include the National Association
of Small Towns; the New York State organizations on the regulation of the siting, placement, construction, and modification of wireless telecommunications I have been asked, as an industry
expert, to conduct seminars at numerous conferences for municipal responsibility for the design, construction, marketing, and operation of one of the largest Cellular RSA’s in the
country. design and operation of telecommunication systems. Moreover, as a Chief Operating Officer, I had complete During my career in the telecommunications industry, I have attended
hundreds of hours of training on network telecommunications industry.two years of experience in the -Masters of Business Administration from Syracuse University. I have over thirtyI
hold a Bachelor of Science in engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point; and a siting, placement, construction, and modification of wireless telecommunications
facilities.for Municipal Solutions (“CMS”), which provides services exclusively to local government, relative to regulation of the founder of the Center -
authored for The Missouri Municipal Review; 2008- –TOWER AND WIRELESS ORDINANCES originally for the CMS web site, but subsequently picked up and widely distributed in the Internet);
2003authored -(Co TOWERS AND WIRELESS FACILITIES . . . THEIR IMPACT AND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT PSATS (The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors); 2002authored for -Are
You Prepared to Deal with the Situation? Co - Towers and Wireless Facilities . . . 1 Million More Publications: Provided affidavit on proof of need, RF emissions, structural, aesthetics,
and nearby property valueYork, January 2006: trict of New NY, United States District Court Southern DisNew Cingular Wireless v City of Rye, Affidavit Testimony: RF emissions, structural,
aesthetics, and nearby property value.: Provided affidavit on proof of need, District of Alabama Northeastern Division, March 2004nited States District Court for the Northern U , Alabama,ity
of HuntsvilleCAmerican Tower v. Affidavit Testimony: Provided affidavit on proof of need, call and drive testing.U.S. District Court of Southern New York; November 2003 ,, v City
of Mount Vernon NextelAffidavit Testimony: RF emissions, structural, aesthetics, and nearby property value.; Provided expert testimony on proof of need, June 2005of Alabama Northeastern
Division, United States District Court for the Northern District , Alabama,ity of HuntsvilleCAmerican Tower v. Court Testimony: preparationcall and drive testing and Ordinance Provided
expert testimony on proof of need, site value,2001 ; NovemberFederal District Court Manhattan New YorkNY, ; v City of New Rochelle NextelCourt Testimony: Expert Witness Experience:
From:Jerone?Gagliano??PE,?CEM?Thank?you,against?it.to?manipulate?the?process?and?pressure?members?to?say?why?they?were?votingapplication,?and?ignored?the?board?member?who?questioned?this.??He?appeare
dthe?denial?resolution?given?that?the?majority?of?the?members?wanted?to?deny?thefavor?of?approving?the?application.??He?ignored?the?proper?procedure?to?work?offgiven?the?blatant?bias?and?unethical?be
havior?he?showed?in?the?last?meeting?inLastly,?I?ask?that?Chairperson?Fred?Wilcox?should?recuse?himself?from?a?re-votethe?telecom?industry.Johnson.??He?appears?to?be?biased?toward?Verizon?with?previo
us?connections?tomisleading?statements?from?the?supposedly?independent?RF?consultant?WilliamAdditionally,?I?can?only?guess?that?the?Board’s?decision?was?also?influenced?by?theprohibition.??intrusive?
means,?and?therefore,?a?denial?of?their?application?is?NOT?an?effectivecouldn’t?remedy?this?gap,?they?did?not?meet?our?Code?requirement?of?leastcoverage?and?be?less?intrusive?and?Verizon?did?not?show
?proof?that?small?cellsprohibition.?Since?it?is?very?likely?that?smaller?cell?antennas?would?fill?the?gap?in?callmisleading?and?false?claim?that?denying?this?large?tower?would?be?an?effectivefollowed
?and?it?appears?that?the?Board?made?their?decision?based?on?Verizon'sWatching?the?last?meeting?made?it?apparent?that?proper?process?was?not?being?meeting?for?the?following?reasons.BoardPlanning?Board
?do?a?re-vote?on?this?application?before?the?next?ZoningI?respectfully?ask?that?the the?proposed?large?cell?tower?at?Wiedmeier?Court.??I?have?watched?and?commented?on?the?previous?Planning?Board?meet
ings?about?period.Apologies?that?I?was?too?late?to?tonight's?meeting?to?make?the?public?comment?Dear?Board?Members,?contact?the?IT?departmentfrom?address,?any?URL?links,?and/or?attachments.?Any?quest
ions?please**WARNING**?This?email?comes?from?an?outside?source.?Please?verify?the?Completed???????????????????????????????????Flag?Status:Follow?up???????????????????????????Follow?Up?Flag:?Request?r
e-vote?for?Verizon's?Large?Cell?Tower?????????????????????????????????????????Subject:Planning?Ithaca?Of?Town??????????????????????????????????????????????????To:Tuesday,?December?17,?2024?7:08?PM???
????????????????????????????????????????????Sent:Gagliano??????????????????????????????????????????????
TO: Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members
Louise Mygatt's Oral Presentation 12/17 before the Ithaca Town Planning Board
Good evening, and thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.
Artificial turf --often viewed as an eco-alternative which allows a reduction of
water and fertilizers needed in traditional grass fields --has continued to grow in
popularity in schools, universities, public parks and even homes. But this turf is
usually made from nylon, polypropylene, and polyethylene designed to mimic
natural grass blades. With artificial turf, thanks to rain runoff and the breakdown
and pulverization by athletes running on the field, microplastics are constantly
being emitted from these fields into the air and water. Cornell's proposed
water -based "infill-free" field hockey turf uses lots of water. Estimates show these
fields use hundreds of thousands of gallons of water annually.
Some of the chemicals found & emitted in the plastic grass blades include: PAHs
and styrene (both reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen), lead and
VOCs (both neurotoxins), and highly fluorinated chemicals called PFAS. These
PFAS are also found in the backings which hold the blades. Plastic blades are a
significant source of microplastic emissions from synthetic turf.
Approximately 98% of Americans have PFAS in their bodies, and they don't break
down. Even if Cornell's proposed filtration system captures all of microplastics in
water run-off as they claim - which it will not - it is not enough. With artificial
turf, these chemicals can be ingested through touching the backing, inhaling it
through the air, or contact and absorption through the skin.
Furthermore, it's been shown that polyethylene — the type used for the grass
blades of artificial turf — emits greenhouse gasses, ethylene, propylene and
methane into the atmosphere as it breaks down. Methane --more powerful at
warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide --is currently driving 25% of
atmospheric warming. Today, artificial turf makes a distinctly large contribution to
climate change in comparison to other plastics.
In 2022, the city of Boston stated that no new artificial turf can be installed in city
parks. In 2023, the California Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic
Materials Committee approved a measure that would ban the manufacturing and
sale of artificial turf containing the toxic "forever chemicals" known as PFAS. An
assembly member was quoted as saying "Young athletes who play on artificial turf
are frequently exposed to harmful `forever chemicals'. As these fields age, they
give off dust containing these chemicals, which are inhaled, ingested and released
into our environment and groundwater." She added: "California must protect the
health of our young athletes and our community, and making sure the fields of the
future don't contain these dangerous chemicals is a major step toward doing just
that."
85% of Ithacans oppose artificial turf. New York State has passed a new law
banning carpets containing PFAS. Natural grass can be managed organically, and
does not need pesticides.
Abbreviations:
PFAS: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
VOC: Volatile organic compounds
SOURCES
https://3littleplums. com/blog/chemical-exposure-in-artificial-turf-what-parents-need-to-know
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/30/boston-bans-artificial-turf-toxic-forever-ch
emicals-pfas
https://peer.org/toxic-forever-chemicals-infest-artificial-turf/
https://viIlagegreennw.com/wp-content/uploads/2021 /07/Mount-Sinai-Letter-to-Maplewood-Townshi
p June-2021.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/chem ical-research/december-2016-status-report-federal-research -action-pIan
-recycled-tire-crumb
htWs: //mountsinaiexi2osomics. org/artificial-turf/
https://iournals.plos.orgplosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200574&utm_medium=email&ut
m source=GovDe1ivery#sec012
htti)s://tencategrass.com/newsroom/first-dry-hockey-field-in-the-world-with-tencates-zero-water-t
echnoloay/
https://en.m.wikipedia.ora/wiki/Field hockey pitch