Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-04-07FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD APRIL 7, 1992 FILED RDWN OF s i r,• ^ —.,s Date &9 ClerLZL The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 7, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, Herbert Finch, William Lesser, Dan Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), Chad Eiken (Planning Technician). ALSO PRESENT: Sybil Phillips, Claude Putnam, John Bargher, George Sheldrake, Elsie McMillan, Elsie Sheldrake, Eleanor Sturgeon, Jim Adams, Annabelle Manning, Ken Baldassarre, Philip L. Cox, Tim Gray, W.B. Kerry, S.K. Egan, Larry Fabbroni, Robert Chiang, Paul Jacobs'. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:30 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on Tuesday, March 31, 1992, and Thursday, April 2, 1992, respectively, together with the Clerk's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of, the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Resident Engineer of the New York State Department,of Transportation, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on March 30, 19929 Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE PROPOSED "MINNIE'S BIQ1111 CONSISTING OF THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO A RESTAURANT —TYPE OPERATION WITH PARKING AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ON A SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF ELMIRA ROAD (NYS RTE. 13) APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTH OF •ITS INTERSECTION WITH SEVEN MILE DRI °VE. TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 35 -1 -29, BUSINESS "C" DISTRICT. KEN BALDASSARRE, OWNER /APPLICANT. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted.above. Attorney James Salk addressed the Board and stated that he was representing the applicant Ken Baldassarre, Attorney Salk said that for those who remember and don't remember this. is an application that looks almost identical to one that was before the Board beginning last February 1991, adding that it looks 1 Planning Board -2- April 7, . 1992 that was because in fact it is almost the identical application that was before the Board last year for a number of Planning Board meetings. Attorney Salk stated that he would quickly review the history of the proposed application for this forum. Attorney Salk stated that there were a number of very lengthy discussions here regarding the impact on traffic on the Route 13 corridor, and some other matters as well, commenting that that formed the basis of the Planning Board's determination to deny site plan approval last June or July, he believed, 'of 1991. Attorney Salk noted that there were two other objections, one being that the odors would constitute a significant deleterious impact on the people in the surrounding area, and secondly, neither public water nor public sewer were available. Attorney Salk said that since last year's rejection,, Mr. Baldassarre retained the services of a Traffic Engineer by the name of Neal Denno,: adding that Mr. Denno prepared a report on his Traffic Impact Study for the Board, and commenting that the original report'!was shared with the Planning Department and, in fact, he (Attorney Salk) had reviewed the Report with staff in November and December of 1991.. Attorney Salk said that the staff asked for some very specific lliquestions to be answered, and those answers were given to them in December 1991,. adding that he again met with staff in January 1992 to discuss' that information to find out if there were anything else with regard to,the traffic, with regard to the odors,. with regard to the site plan, or .anything else with regard to the application that, they felt would be necessary or would be helpful in helping the Board come to a decision, and from his (Attorney Salk's) and. Mr.. .B,al:das.sa-rre's point of view, to come up with a favorable decision.' Attorney Salk stated that the staff indicated to him that they were satisf,ied_in early January 1992, _and the application was mace within a very short period of time thereafter. Attorney Salk stated that for reasons he has never explored they did not make the February 1992 Planning Board meeting, however, on February 14, 1992 the Town Board changed the law. Attorney Salk stated that when he met with the Board last year the proposed operation was a legal use in Business Zone "C" and it is still a legal use in Business Zone "C " , adding that last year that was all that was required. Attorney Salk commented that now because of the February 14, 1992 Zoning Ordinance', amendment, as he understands it, and as he has been told by Town Planner Floyd Forman and the staff, they are now required to get from the Board not only site plan approval but also a- recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals whether they ought to. grant special approval 'or not. Attorney Salk noted that the .change in the law occurred on February 14, 1992 and the application was pending at the time, and, at the time that Mr. Baldassarre spent a very considerable amount of money necessary to commission the traffic study, the law was different. Attorney Salk.noted that they had worked very, very hard with 'the Board and with the Planning Department since that time to come up with',what they think is a fair application. Attorney Salk stated that he knows the Planning Board did not make the law, but it has to be applied. Attorney Salk stated that he was not asking the Board to c'omprom�ise their role in any way, but he did wish the Board to take into consideration the long and circuitous road that Mr. Baldassarre and Minnie's BQ has gone through to get to this point in t 1 Planning Board -2- April 7, . 1992 that was because in fact it is almost the identical application that was before the Board last year for a number of Planning Board meetings. Attorney Salk stated that he would quickly review the history of the proposed application for this forum. Attorney Salk stated that there were a number of very lengthy discussions here regarding the impact on traffic on the Route 13 corridor, and some other matters as well, commenting that that formed the basis of the Planning Board's determination to deny site plan approval last June or July, he believed, 'of 1991. Attorney Salk noted that there were two other objections, one being that the odors would constitute a significant deleterious impact on the people in the surrounding area, and secondly, neither public water nor public sewer were available. Attorney Salk said that since last year's rejection,, Mr. Baldassarre retained the services of a Traffic Engineer by the name of Neal Denno,: adding that Mr. Denno prepared a report on his Traffic Impact Study for the Board, and commenting that the original report'!was shared with the Planning Department and, in fact, he (Attorney Salk) had reviewed the Report with staff in November and December of 1991.. Attorney Salk said that the staff asked for some very specific lliquestions to be answered, and those answers were given to them in December 1991,. adding that he again met with staff in January 1992 to discuss' that information to find out if there were anything else with regard to,the traffic, with regard to the odors,. with regard to the site plan, or .anything else with regard to the application that, they felt would be necessary or would be helpful in helping the Board come to a decision, and from his (Attorney Salk's) and. Mr.. .B,al:das.sa-rre's point of view, to come up with a favorable decision.' Attorney Salk stated that the staff indicated to him that they were satisf,ied_in early January 1992, _and the application was mace within a very short period of time thereafter. Attorney Salk stated that for reasons he has never explored they did not make the February 1992 Planning Board meeting, however, on February 14, 1992 the Town Board changed the law. Attorney Salk stated that when he met with the Board last year the proposed operation was a legal use in Business Zone "C" and it is still a legal use in Business Zone "C " , adding that last year that was all that was required. Attorney Salk commented that now because of the February 14, 1992 Zoning Ordinance', amendment, as he understands it, and as he has been told by Town Planner Floyd Forman and the staff, they are now required to get from the Board not only site plan approval but also a- recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals whether they ought to. grant special approval 'or not. Attorney Salk noted that the .change in the law occurred on February 14, 1992 and the application was pending at the time, and, at the time that Mr. Baldassarre spent a very considerable amount of money necessary to commission the traffic study, the law was different. Attorney Salk.noted that they had worked very, very hard with 'the Board and with the Planning Department since that time to come up with',what they think is a fair application. Attorney Salk stated that he knows the Planning Board did not make the law, but it has to be applied. Attorney Salk stated that he was not asking the Board to c'omprom�ise their role in any way, but he did wish the Board to take into consideration the long and circuitous road that Mr. Baldassarre and Minnie's BQ has gone through to get to this point in Planning Board -3- April 7, 19.92 deciding the ;manner in which. the Board. is going to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Salk stated that he would turn to specific problems of last year. Attorney Salk said that the first one is the water and sewer. Attorney ,Salk aistated that as he understands it from the Town Engineer, municipal water and sewer are available to the site so he did not believethat is a problem any longer, and he felt that any further discussion of that can be dispensed with. Attorney Salk noted that, the s!'econd problem was that of the odors constituting a significant deleterious impact on the people in the surrounding area, adding, with regard to that matter there was a great deal of discussion: the many meetings held on the project. Attorney Salk said that many of the issues were fairly aired, but some of the issues he did. not think were given consideration.. Attorney Salk sajid that the Board did consider that this is a business zone, and a restaurant or food service establishment is a perfectly legal `legitimate use in this zone, and that has not been changed by their new laws the use is one that is contemplated on this site. Attorney.iSalk said that the particular applicant has many, many mitigating,, factors that he has brought to bear for this application. Attorney Salk stated that Mr. Baldassarre's intention is to. operate only on weekends; it is .not all week long, _it is only on weekends, and!!even on the weekends the hours are going to be Limited, ladding that the _ ..app.l.ic.ant --is not talking about dawn to midnight operation as many and most restaurants would be, or other food.,establi.shments of that kind..- Attorney Salk stated th -at on the Environmental Assessment Form it shows that the prevailing wind is -away from; _the few residences that are close by this site, so that means at least when the wind is prevailing, which is not always, but when it is prevailing, which is most.of the time, the odors such as they are, if we want to call them odors, will be carried away from the house which is right next to the site and the few houses across the street and down the road which are quite a bit more remote than the house„ that is next to the site Attorney Salk said that, in addition, the Board has the information regarding the fans, and was satisfied that the fans cured the problem of the grease and the smoke, butunot the odor,�commenting that they are not pretending it does eliminate the odor,. or the aroma, as the way they like to think of it; it certainly oes put it u in the air puts the odor u Y P P P in P the air where it can be dispersed with less of an impact than it would be if it were coming out at ground level. Attorney Salk said that the other thing to consider is that-Mr. Baldassarre is proposing a very limited menu; he is not going to have.a lot of different kinds of greasy this and that and the other kinds of foods; one food is basically going to be cooked there, and this is checken. Attorney Salk said, that the EAF proposed by the professional staff concludes that there is no significant adverse impact, which is quite different from what was concluded last year; they have had more time to consider it; it' was discussed with the staff and that is the conclusion: that the professional staff comes up with. Attorney Salk stated that he felt the most important point of all, which he did not Planning Board -4- April 7, 1992 see in any of. the Minutes in reviewing the matter, is that the odor as it has been referred to, but the glorious fragrance -- some say it is devine, given to us by the Gods. Attorney Salk commented that the aroma being talked about is the aroma of barbecued chicken; one is not talking about industrial waste or other toxic kinds of chemical. Attorney Salk said that the aroma of barbecued chicken is simply not a health hazard; the person who lives right next door may be annoyed by it, which Attorney Salk and his client understand and they are sympathetic to that, but it is not a health hazard; it is not something that is deleterious to the general welfare of the neighborhood; it simply isn't; the fragrance of barbecued chicken is being talked about and let's keep that in perspective. Continuing, Attorney Salk turned to the Traffic Report. Attorney Salk stated that the Traffic Report clearly and without qualification says much to the surprise of the Planning Department and he thought they would be the first to admit it, nontheless, it says that there is no adverse impact on Route 13 that will result from the approval of this site plan -- Minnie's will not change anything.1 Attorney Salk, referring to the traffic, stated that it's bad, the applicant and his Attorney know it's bad; Floyd knows it's bad; it "is bad and nobody is arguing that it is bad; the question before the Board^ is -- is it going to be any worse, and the answer from the l' expert is no, including the point that Town Planner Forman has raised on any number of occasions about the turning actions into the -site.!,! _ Attorney Salk-.stated -that the Transportation Consultant; Neal Denno', has "done an actual count, looked at it and said -- no adverse _: mp.ac:t,` there -wi.l.l be .no .delay or .no- significant delay _for someone turning into the site, even from the righthand lane going south. Attorney Salk stated that those are the facts that are before the Board;-- there is no impact. Attorney Salk commented that, yes, someone coming ,,out of the site.just as someone coming out onto Route 13 from Seven Mile Drive is going to have.to wait; they have to wait now; they are- 'going to have to wait then, and they will not have to wait in any way measurably longer and according to Mr..Denno's report there will,be no perceptible change. Attorney Salk stated that he believed the above were the facts before the<Boardiand they were stated very forcefully. Attorney Salk said that these facts take care of the concerns the Board had last year, which he assumed are the same concerns the Board has this year. Attorney Salk stated that he thought the concerns have been addressed and they have been addressed fairly, and he believed the Board's conclusion ought to be different; he thought it was incumbent upon the Board to review the matter and to determine that the site plan ought to libe approved,. adding that that is not the end of the Board's job, as was discussed earlier -- now the Town Board has given the Planning Board. an additional job; the Planning Board now has to make some recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding whether or not Special Approval ought to be granted. Attorney Salk stated that the Zoning Ordinance, Section 78, gives the factors in making that determination. Attorney Salk said that,. Number 1, there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location; that one is 1 1 Planning Board -5- April 7, 1992 easy. Attorney Salk commented that the summer is coming and noted that there are two major State Parks right near the site and the parks attract traffic. Attorney Salk stated that as far as he is aware there are no concession stands at the parks, adding, people need food and here is a great way to feed those hungry people who are going to and from the park. Attorney Salk mentioned that, luckily enough, right ,down the road there is Eddygate Farms so one can pick up peppers; and tomatoes, and there is Earlybird Farm where one can pick up the best corn in the Town of Ithaca and have a picnic. Attorney Salk stated that, in addition, it is one of the major corridors for „getting to and from home; what better location for an establishment of,this kind. Attorney Salk commented that everyone is concerned about tourists, but that happens to be one of the main corridors between Elmira, NY and Ithaca, NY. Attorney Salk said that the second point is the existing and probable future; character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located „will not be adversely affected. Attorney Salk noted that this is an area,,that has been parsed by the New York Court of Appeals and by many courts following the Court of Appeals language in a case called "North Shore Steak House ". Attorney Salk cited the quote from that as being "the inclusion in a Zoning ordinance of a use permitted by special permit in tantamount to a legislative finding that the use is in harmony with the general zoning plan, and, that it will not adversely affect the area. Attorney Salk stated that he thinks that -:means that where _there is a legal use, as he felt is so in this instance, and where the Town Board has stated it is a legal use, unless .-it can- be,,shown to the contrary -it is deemed to be within the general zoning plan and that it does not adversely affect the area.. Attorney Salk stated that that happens to comply with the environmental assessment form which also recommends finding a negative declarations that is that there is no negative or adverse effect to the area. Attorney Salk said that another important point with regard to the secondfrequirement is to remember that the new Town law has set out a schedule {of what is allowed without permit and what is allowed with permit for each business zone. Attorney Salk stated that with regard to traffic there are many uses that are allowed without any special permit where the traffic impact is equal to or greater than that projected from Minnie's BQ -- it allows banks, for instance, and there is no special approval required. It allows doctors' offices. It allows dry cleaning; no special permit required. The dry cleaning harks back to the question of odors; dry cleaning is alright but Minnie's BQ is not okay. Attorney Salk commented that he is not sure everyone understands what the difference is - in a given case he can see what ',the difference is, but not in Minnie's BQ. Attorney Salk offered that heating shops, monument works, printers, a dyer is allowed without'' any approval, caterer, and the one that hit Attorney Salk the most is a confectioner; the smell of candy can be put up in the air and no approval is necessary. Attorney Salk stated that "chicken ".needs an approval. Attorney Salk said that it seemed clear to him that a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board -6- April 7, 1992 given all the factors, is mandated, and he would ask the Board to do that. Finally, Attorney Salk stated that in reviewing the file today at the Town Planning Department office he had the opportunity to look at Town Planner Floyd Forman's memo to the Planning Board. Attorney Salk stated that,;he was somewhat disappointed to see that Mr. Forman sits on the fence or does not make a recommendation to the Board one way or another; that is his prerogative, but there are a couple of things to be pointed out so there is no misconception about them. Attorney Salk offered that Mr. Forman said that he had a number of concerns regarding short- and long -term impacts of the project, they include the potential impact of traffic to and from the site, especially leftli turning vehicles. Attorney Salk urged the Board to take a look at the Report from the Traffic Consultant, Neal Denno -eee specific answer to Mr. Forman's comment regarding the left turns. Attorney Salk stated that the Report makes it clear that there will not: be any effect, and no delays, or at least no significant delays in making the turning motion into Minnie's BQ. The other' itew cited by Mr.. Forman is future land use planning decisions for the area, which Attorney Salk said is the third criteria .the Board is to look at. Attorney Salk said that he did not. think the Board ;can hold Minnie's BQ to future planning concerns if they are ,not on the table now. Attorney Salk wondered how they are supposed to predict what the Board is going to do; the Board, he would venture to say, probably can- t predict what they are goring -to do. Attorney Salk stated that as far as he is aware there is no - comprehensive plan of - development in the Town in place right now, that is what the third criteria is, and he thought that is what Mr. Forman isili referring to in his comments to the Board. Chairperson Grigorog +stated, that the Comprehensive Plan is being written. Attorney ,Salk responded -= it is being written, and that is terrific, but they do not know what is being written, and.they are here before the.Board ,tonight. Board; Member Lesser asked for a point of clarification in that it was mentionediearlier on in the presentation that Minnie's BQ would be operating just weekends. Mr.. Lesser just wanted to emphasize that the applicant, on the second page, stated that "I hope to eventually. be in operation seven days a week from-April through October". Attorney Salk stated that he thought he said the applicant intends to operate on weekends. Mr. Lesser said that in his planning, and based on the applicant's statement, he thought that at some point in „time this is going to be a full -time operation, at least through a large portion of the year. Attorney Salk responded that they certainly want to reserve that right to expand; they did not ask just for weekends; his point was that that was what the intention is for the present time to see how things go, adding, the other thing to remember is that even if it goes day to day during the week they are not going to be talking about the kind of volume that one talks "about on a summer weekend, so he thought the numbers being talked about are significantly diminished. Planning Board -7- April 7, 1992 Board. Member Langhans stated that there was talk previously about potato salads, this and that, etc. Ms. Langhans wondered if that was for weekends and holidays only or .... Mr. Baldassarre answered, weekends and holidays only. Ms. Langhans said that Minnie's BQ would have not only chicken, but there would be other salads to 'go with it. Mr. Baldassarre responded, yes, and it would be all carry out -- there will be potato salad, macaroni salad, baked beans -- if someone wants a dinner he can give them a dinner. Ms. Langhans wondered about drinks such as Coca Cola, Pepsi, stuff like that., Mr. Baldassarre answered, probably, yes. Chairperson Grigorov asked if the filters in the fans, were directional at all, or do they just go straight out the top and wherever the wind takes it. Mr. Baldassarre said that the smoke is drawn up and it goes through the filter. Chairperson Grigorov noted that it cannot be directed.one way or another. Mr. Baldassarre said that it cannot be directed' one way or another. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she has a question since this is the first.res,taurant that has come before the Board since the change of, the law. Chairperson Grigorov said that what it mainly does is give an ''extra level of review. Attorney Barney noted that it changes the criteria a- little bit too; there are site plan considerat „ions now. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board is bas.ing,;. its Lrecommendation on the. same criteria that the Board generally bases :;any recommendation to the ZBA; Article XIV, Section 78 of the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Barney said that those are criteria for theliirecommendations, but the Planning Board still has -the same_ site -p';lan .approval. - Attorney Barney said that now there are two sets o;f crit;eria to make a decision on; the project should meet both. Attorney Barney, commenting on the reference to the Comprehensive Plan and the statute, said that as he understands the law there, does not have to be a written Comprehensive Plan, it can be evidenced by a variety of things, the Zoning Ordinance is only really one part,, the Subdivision Regulations, decisions actually made by Boards along the way, can all be kind of incorporated in a text called the comprehensive plan of development of the Town, it does not have to be solely one instrument or one document. Attorney Salk responded. ' he does not know if there is other than thoughts here and here, but even if it were ... the Town Board has spoken on this issue now, not terribly cheerfully for me, but they have set this, and this is still a legal_ use. Chairperson,Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and. asked if {l there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions.` Sybil, Phillips of 721 Elmira Road addressed that, her property is about 310 feet from proposing.,to cook the chicken in. Ms. Phillips unable to` attend the meeting that was held on so she has, a couple of questions. the Board and stated the building they are said that she was this matter last year, Planning Board -8- April 7, 1992 Ms. Phillips stated that she was told it was an open pit and wondered what kind of fuel would be used. Attorney Salk responded that it is °not really an open pit. Mr. Baldassarre stated. that the pit would: be enclosed on three sides by three -foot -high walls, open only to the road,, and a hood over the pit. Attorney Barney wondered if the pit was inside the building. Mr. Baldassarre answered, yes. Secondly, Ms. Phillips wondered if the traffic study was done in the summer or" winter. Attorney Salk responded that the study was done Friday, August 23, 1991 and Saturday, August 24, 1991, adding; that this was the time Ithaca College students were coming into Town. At this pointy`, Ms. Phillips distributed copies of a petition to the Board members. Ms. Phillips stated that she thought No. 6 could be deleted if, the water and sewer has been approved and verified. [Copy of petition attached hereto as Exhibit #1]. Ms. Phillips stated that she is quite allergic to smoke and if the smoke „settle's in her yard, which is below the area, she' will be unable tolgo outside in the summer as well as the winter, adding, she cannot go ''outside now because of the heating methods of people around the area.' Ms;,. Phillips distributed copies of a note from Dr. Rubinstein, M.D.,, stating that Ms. Phillips has allergic problems. [Note attached hereto as Exhibit #2]. Ms. Phillips stated that wood smoke bothers he,r, and wondered if this was going to be different from wood smoke; wood smoke is very toxic to her.. Ms. Phillips wondered if this' °was the same BQ that was at Eddygate a few years ago. Chairperson Grigorov answered, no. Tim Gray of 657 Elmira Road addressed the Board and stated that he was rep;resent'ng. the Grayhaven Motel, which is adjacent to the proposed Project, Mr. Gray stated that they are definitely opposed to the project, they were opposed last time and they are opposed again. Mr. Gray said that the project will definitely cause traffic problems at that location, and will cause problems during rush hours. Mr. Gray stated that he could not believe that it will not cause problems, one one can adjust the findings any way so that it seems positive, °but it is really negative; there is a lot of traffic on that road +and this project is going to add to the congestion of people turning left, no matter how it is looked at. Mr. Gray noted that leaving the,,site going south, or people coming south and turning left into'', the liproperty is very dangerous. Mr. Gray said that the Grayhaven Motel has ten motel units that are only 75 feet from the proposed business, commenting that he thought it would be a detriment to people staying at the motel. Mr. Gray mentioned that people staying overnight might possibly have respiratory problems. Mr. Gray said he did not 'see how the project can be approved. Mr. Gray stated that the proposed operation is very close to a wilderness areas it is not very fear from the wetlands and he would think there would be a negative ;;effect" on the wetlands. Mr. Gray offered that it is a very pleasing area tojlwalk in, but to have chicken smoke filtering down the valley is not exactly what he thought the residents or any of the property owners have in mind for that area. Mr. Gray said that there is a deep', ravine behind the site that goes into the Inlet where there is a lot of natural wildlife, adding that it is a long valley that goes down to the railroad tracks and into the wetl.and, adding that he Planning Board -9- April 7, 1992 thought a lot of the smoke will filter down there. Mr. Gray stated that George Sheldrake spends a lot of time in the wilderness. Chairperson Grigorov asked who owned the land behind the site. Mr. Sheldrake 'replied that it is the Inlet valley; there is a fishing stream down through there. Mr. Gray offered that some of it is State land; some of it is owned by the Cortright family, and some of, it he believed is owned by Eddydale. George Sheldrake of 174 Calkins Road spoke from the floor and stated that he" owns the two houses located at 713 and 715 Elmira Road. Mr.Sheldrake also stated that the Earlybird Farm is located across the road. Mr. Sheldrake stated that the smoke is the main concern; it is not the fragrance. Mr. Sheldrake said that the Environmental Assessment Form, as it is written, does not take into effect the;quali;ty of life that people are experiencing in the area. Mr. Sheldrake commented that smoke may not be damaging to your health in some certain instances, but it is going to be noticed all the time and the smoke will be a nuisance. Mr. Sheldrake, referring to the traffic, offered that last year there were 300 -500 cars per day. Mr. Sheldrake^ said that it seems to him to be a traffic hazard, and it also is going topbe rush hour. Mr. Sheldrake said that the operation of the B'Q on weekends and holidays is also when the residents are at home trying to enjoy their lifestyle. Mr. Sheldrake stated that he assumed the prevailing wind is probably from the south. A voice from the back of the-,room said that it would be prevailing westerly wind. Mr. Sheldrake_ 'stated that he thought the smoke was coming the other way and taking-the smoke toward the motel.. i Eleanor Sturgeon of 718 Elmira Road stated that she has been at this address for close to 40 years. Ms. Sturgeon said that it has been a quiet residential neighborhood where the residents. have, been able to bring up children, animals,. and generally enjoy the outside. Ms. Sturgeon offered that up to about ten years ago the traffic was livable. . Ms. 11 Sturgeon stated that she lost a dog on the road two years ago,'', and she has to have a fence to keep her dog in. Ms. Sturgeon commented on the heavy traffic on Elmira Road; it takes a long time ''to get out of a driveway. Ms. Sturgeon stated that just because it is „possible for the applicant to have a food business there does, not mean that they have to have it the residents have been there so long and their needs and their wishes should be respected., Ms. sturgeon mentioned Ms. Phillips allergy problems in that she' has allergy problems as well -- all the petroleum going by. Ms. Sturgeon feels that the residents have rights; they have been there a long 'time, and their rights as the oldest residents have to be taken into consideration; they are entitled to that because they were there first. Ms. Sturgeon mentioned that the residents might be driven out because of the conditions. Ms. Sturgeon said that she felt the ,'area would be badly affected.by the noises,. and the accident rate goes 'up . Elsie McMillan of 812 Elmira Road appeared before the Board and stated that she' does not live in a place that is probably going to be affected b'y the odor or the smoke, as she is far enough away. Ms. McMillan noted' that.the Traffic Report indicated that there would be 11 1 Planning Board -10- April 7, 1992 absolutely no increase in traffic.. Ms. McMillan said that a doctor "s office schedules appointments; there is a steady flow of traffic but there is not a peak time. Ms. McMillan offered that people tend to eat about',the same time of day, and if there are six cars going south on Route 13 and the occupants of the vehicles decide they want chicken at 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. on a Saturday, then there is going to be a problem with the traffic turning left. Ms. McMillan said that Route 13 is a two -lane road and it would be hard getting around the cars. Ms. McMillan stated that she felt the turning left problem is the only reason the project should not be approved. Ms. McMillan stated that none of the neighbors would be here if the application were for °a different business - a business like a farm equipment business or a lawn and garden business, where people would come in off and on all day long. Ms. McMillan said that she did not think this was an anti'= business atmosphere. Ms. McMillan stated that she hoped the, Board did not see this as ,a bunch of homeowners who do not want any business there. Claude Putnam of 711 Elmira Road stated that he would like to have some'' figures on the size of the pit. Mr. Baldassarre responded that the pit would be 30 feet long and would be enclosed on three sides by three -foot height walls, open only to the road, with a hood over the pit. Mt. Putnam wondered how much grease the filters. would take out before it goes in the air. Attorney Salk replied that it would take';-out somewhere between 60 =70 percent. Mr. Putnam -asked what would happen to the rest of it. Mr. Putnam stated that he used to boil maple .syrup at the proposed_project site for 30 years, and the wind .'that is prevailing is toward his house and toward Sybil's house, andltoward George's house. Mr. Putnam also expressed a traffic concern -- during rush hour one cannot even walk across the road let alone drive across, commentingthat coming from the south the vision is limited. Mr. Putnam said that he is going to have to sit in his house all day long with the smoke, and.once it gets in the house one cannot get it out, adding that once it gets in his house and can't get back out he is going to have problems with somebody. George Sheldrake said that the grease smoke from chicken is heavier than air, it does, not. go up like a lot of chemical smoke does, or even wood smoke which stays up in the air. Harley Steffy (no address given) addressed the Board and - stated that the :last time he was before the Board he was representing Sybil Phillips. Mr. Steffy stated that if the previous meeting notes were checked it was'noted that less than 500 of the grease was removed by precipitating it out that meant that there was still 50% at least, or more, !going up into the air and being spread all over. Mr. Putnam's house will get a good coat of it, and every other house within probably a quarter of a mile will get a coat of grease. Mr. Steffy said that the Traffic Report had no mention of the conditions that already exist there, which is a minimum visibility of barely 500 feet. Mr. Steffy mentioned line of sight; a man standing, it is not in a car. Mr. Steffy stated that he believed smoke will create an Planning Board -11- April 7, 1992 impossible situation; any smoke that goes onto the road will reduce the stopping time of vehicles; also grease on the road will make the road slippery, adding that he knows this firsthand because right in front of .the Star Oil business by Buttermilk Falls he tried to stop on his motorcycle, but could not because they had spilled oil on the road. Mr. Steffy feels that all these things must be considered. Mr. Steffy said he felt it would be ill- advised to come forward and say that this is a proper use of that particular property. Mr. Putnam commented that there are no services on that road at the present time; and wondered how soon they would be there. Town Engineer Dan Walker responded that the sewer and water service does come to the property,.and the construction for the next phase is anticipated to start in June or July of 1992. Mr. Walker said that the property owner can be hooked up when the segments are pressure tested and approved. Mr. Putnam wondered if he were right in that there would not be any services to the property before September or October 1992. Mr. Walker stated.that the property can be served by the existing water and sewer, the sewer comes right to the property line and ithere is a manhole right at the end of it. Mr. Putnam responded that he knew that, but that it is abut 200 feet. Mr. Walker replied ,that the applicant may have to put a long lateral in to make it' serve that would be the applicant's responsibility. Mr. Walker offered that the water service is across the road and could be brought across, at the applicant's expense, if he wants to hookup now rather than wait for the construction of the remainder of the main. Mr. Walker ^noted that the Health Department governs food service establishments as far as water supply is concerned. Sybil,, Phillips again addressed the Board and wondered if there were any air quality standards that would disallow putting wood smoke or additional things like that in the air. Mr. Walker responded that the air quality standards are based on a concentration of smoke in the air. Mr. Walker said that. he believed that the ventilation system Mr.. Baldassarre is proposing would dilute the discharge and meet the air quality standards. A voice from the back of the room wondered if it did not dilute it, and, in fact;, was doing.-like everyone knows it will, what would be the procedure then to close it down? Mr. Walker responded that the Health Department governs that; adding that the entire restaurant facility has to receive a Health Department approval prior to operation. Thereappearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to ',;this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Town Planner Forman stated that the memo from him, to' the Planning Board,.; and dated April 2, 1992, expresses some.issues that need to be looked at. Mr. F,'orman 'referred to the three items under Section 78 of the Zoning Ord'inance'. Planning Board -12- April 7, 1992 10 There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location. Mr. Forman communicated that Attorney Salk advised the Board why he thought there was a need for the use in the proposed location. Mr. Forman commented that some of the other things the Board may want to consider is the fact that there are about five or six food restaurants a short distance away from the proposed Minnie's BQ. Mr. Forman said that he was sure that Mr. Baldassarrre's product is a lot better than the fast food restaurants. Mr. Forman mentioned that there is also Tops and Wegmans a short distance away who make barbecued chicken. Mr. Forman said that one can at least weigh the issues when one takes a look at "is there a need for the proposed use in the proposed location ". 2. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. Mr. Forman stated that the existing character of the neighborhood is a mixed neighborhood in terms of uses, and beyond'saying what has been heard from the residents-in the area, 1who are the existing character of the neighborhood, .he did�not.know that -any more needs to be said by him about the existing character of the neighborhood. Mr. Forman added that the probable future character of the neighborhood is being addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. -Mr.. Forman stated that a hard look _is being taken concerning strip development in Inlet valley, and in other places, so that there is not a situation that the neighbors have expressed tonight about not being able to exit their driveways. Mr. Forman offered that one of the things that the Traffic Study does say, commenting that this does not specifically relate to the proposed project, is that with everything going on on Route 13 it is virtually impossible to getllout of one's driveway or to get out of Seven Mile Drive. Mr. Forman noted that the study states that the proposed.project.is not terribly going to exacerbate it. Mr. Forman noted that the study also said that there will be little or no additional delay from the project itself, but there is always incremental delay any time there is another strip development, or any time there is another curbcut. 3. The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. Mr. Forman stated that it is not strictly the- Comprehensive Plan, but it is also the Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations, etc., adding that one of the issues being I ooked. at now is strip development. Planning Board -13- April 7, 1992 At this point, Chairperson Grigorov said that Mr. Forman did.not recommend .against the project. Mr. Forman responded that he had heard that from someone else that he was sitting on the fence on this. Mr.,Forman stated that he tried to do his best to just address the issues'. and balance off what Attorney Salk had to say.. Board Member William Lesser asked for further comment on the Traffic Study. Mr..Forman responded that in terms of the information in the study it is accurate, and it is a.good study. Mr. Forman said that the question is how much this project is going to make it such that it is going to make it more difficult for-the neighborhood residents. Mr. Forman noted that the Study comes to the conclusion that it is minimal and Mr. Forman thinks that is reasonably accurate. ^Mr. Forman stated that every time there is a strip development, an additional strip that is being opened, and in this case it is'not a'situation like.a doctor's office where there is a steady stream of approximately two people per hour. The people going to Minnie's BQ would be grouped in peak periods around lunchtime and around dinnertime. Again, Mr. Forman said that he thought the Traffic Study was fair, but he thought that there is always an incremental increase, and even though it does not seem to change the level of service "in terms of making a left -hand turn, it always changes it incrementally. Board Member Kenerson asked Ms. Phillips if she remembered what the zoning was when she moved to the area, or was this before the zoning was in for -ce. Ms Phillips responded that when she moved to the 721 Elmira Rd. address in 1961 it was R -30. Mr. Kenerson asked Mr. Putnam about boiling maple syrup on the proposed site. Mr. Putnam replied that he had boiled maple syrup for years in the .exact building that is being proposed as Minnie's BQ. Mr. Kenerson- wondered what kind of effect that smoke had. Mr. Putnam responded that that smoke went toward his house and toward Ms. Phillips house. Mr. Kenerson wondered if they had maple smelling clothes. Mr. Putnam answered, eyes. Ms. Phillips said that this was during the winter. Ms. McMillan offered that the maple syrup boiling season is in March and April; wood was used to boil the syrup. Mr. Putnam stated that the reason'he and Mr. Brink never used that building to sell produce was because the building is. on the wrong side of the road. Mr. Steffy interjected -- when the State Police sit by the motels and stop traffic or slow it down, it backs up all the way down past Eddydale and the same thing goes for the other direction. 11 Mr. I Forman said that much of what he gave to the Planning Board was the issue about a recommendation to the ZBA, and, should the Planning Board ,,decide in favor of the recommendation there are some technical details that need to be worked out on the site plan, if a recommendation is made to the ZBA. Chairperson Grigorov said that she did not see how the Planning Board cannot made a recommendation, that is their job. Mr. Forman stated that he meant a positive or negative recommendation. Planning Board -14- Ms. Langhans commented that when the evening the pit area is still going Langhans said that the suggestion was animals to it, as there will be residue grate. Mr. Baldassarre responded th and put them someplace. April 7, 1992 the business is closed down in to be open in front. Mse made that the smell. will bring of barbecued chicken on the at he would take the grates off Board Member Lesser stated that he would very much hate to see that area turned into a strip development; he would like to see what the various committees have to propose that would suggest an alternative, adding that he would be very reluctant to approve anything which might impede another development plan for the area which could avoid a continuation of the City and of Route 13. Chairperson Grigorov offered that there has not been any discussion of that side of the road; it is not anything coming up very soon. Board Member Kenerson said that with the availability of sewer and water people are going to be attracted to the area, and in today's world that is "cars ". Board Member Langhans asked about the possibility of "a "trial ", can this be arranged for a year or just weekends? "Mr. Lesser responded that when one puts an investment like that in an area... Chairperson Grigorov said that that is up to Mr. Baldassarre, but wondered if the Planning Board could do it. Ms. Langhans mentioned the investment in that the building itself is there; she thought the biggest investment would be the fans. Mr. Lesser said that there is always a big investment in starting up a business, advertising, training people, etc, Attorney Salk mentioned the sprinkler system in that, given the previous discussions with the Town and -the Health.Department, there.are quite a lot of requirements for what appears'to be a small project. Attorney Barney stated that he understood the business would be open, initally,just weekends and holidays, Mr. Baldassarre said that he would „be happy with that, Attorney Barney said that if the Planning Board chose to grant the approval it could be conditioned so that the "business would be limited to weekends and holidays; that gives a "trial " - in terms of a part of the week. Attorney Salk wondered if Mr+. Baldassarre would have to come back before the Board if he wanted to expand the hours, Attorney Barney replied, yes. Mr. Kenerson wondered if Mr. Baldassarre had. contacted the Health Department. Mr. Baldassarre answered, yes, Chairperson. Grigorov noted that the Planning Board received a positive memo dated April 13, 1992, from the Tompkins County Department of Panning regarding the proposal. [Memo attached hereto as Exhibit, #3 ]a Mr. Lesser commented that he thought if this proposal is approved, what the Planning Board is approving is a full restaurant; if it is weekends how can one say no to weeks if they are serving cole slaw, soda; one cannot start limiting customers, menu, and things like that -- how long is it going to be before the front is filled in; -- it is going to be a restaurant. Attorney Barney stated j that one cannot go in fear of what is going to happen in the future 1 �1 Planning Board because that are require -15- anything that alters the imposed,; as long as they coming back to the Board April 7, 1992 site plan or alters the conditions are reasonable conditions, would for Special Approval.. Board'1 Member Finch commented that he would be could sell,that many chickens, but Mr. Baldassarre i is a market and, whether people would prefer a WE Minnie's or not there is no way to tell that need fY seen so far. Mr. Finch said that there is nothing t not a need, except his bet. Mr. Finch, referring t change is" in accordance with a comprehensive plan the Town ", stated that he was concerned about what mz area, but the Board has not given the applicant says he is not in accordance with the Comprehensive accordance° with the Zoning law that exists and hE that much different from some of the other business that area. Mr. Finch said he.did not see.how the F surprised if they s betting there gman chicken to a om what he has hat says there is o "The proposed of development of y happen in that any guidance that Plan; he is in is certainly not es that are in oard can hold Mr. Baldassarre to a Comprehensive Plan that may delay some of.the things the Board; is concerned about in the whole area, and the applicant is meeting the Zoning Ordinance. Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that the proposal is an allowed use in a Business "C" Zone with a Special Approval. Mr. Finch stated that he understood, from what Attorney ir Barney said, although there is not a Comprehensive Plan, basically, what Mr. Baldassarre has to go on is what is in place, and that is the zoning law: Attorney Barney commented -- and what we have done in.other_areas, just-by Planning Board decisions, Zoning Board. of Appeals decisions, and Town Board rezonings. Mr. Finch said that the only argument he,can see Is with number two, "The existing -and probable futureh character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected " ,!!in terms of the existing and probable future character. Mr. Finch' °stated that he was not sure about the probable future; when one says probable then says future that gives him two things that he does not know about. Mr. Finch said that he was not trying to debate whether it "is right or wrong at this point; he was just trying to look at the criteria. Mr. Lesser stated that his interpretation of the word "need" is somewhat different from Mr. Finch's. Mr. Lesser said that as he understands it, Mr. Finch is saying, essentially, market test; if it's economic, if it's financially viable, there is a need for it, adding, if that is the case there is no point in putting it in a law; the °best thing to do is to just let business go ahead if it goes, fine - if it doesn't, fine. Mr. Lesser said that he thinks the business is really in an inappropriate place to put it, whether it is, or is not, financially viable. Mr. Lesser stated that in terms of probable future character, to a large extent, that is in the Board's hands. Chairperson Grigorov commented that only within the zoning can the Board control.things. Ms. Langhans commented that if strip 'development is being put every 200 -500 feet it is being shaped in a way that is probably not the way the Board wants it shaped. ,Chairperson Grigorov stated that as far as she knew the Board has not disallowed anything because it was a strip development.. It was noted that this project, last time around, was site plan approval. Mr. Lesser mentioned Cannon Pools which is a little bit farther north on Elmira Road. Mr. Lesser said that the Board was Planning Board -16- April 7, 1992 very careful about the distance off the road, visibility from the road, and the character of the building, adding that traffic was not a factor there. Mr. Lesser said that it could have been proposed for an automobile dealership, which would have a very different impact; the Board would'' have looked at it quite differently from the business that is presently there. Mr. Finch stated that he is still puzzled over the existing character of the neighborhood. Chairperson' Grigorov asked if there were any way of having a buffer toward the residential zone. Ms. Langhans, directing her comment to Mr.. , Forman, asked what the distance was between Minnie's BQ and the;R -30 zone. Sybil Phillips of 321 Elmira Road answered, 310 feet., Attorney Barney stated that the buffer zone requirement is a buffer zone between a commercial zone and a residential zone, adding that he thought Mr.. Putnam's house at 711 Elmira Road, regretfully or otherwise, is within the commercial zone, so it is not a buffer zone between a commercial establishment and a residential establishment; it is between zones. A voice from the audience wondered, why then when Finger Lakes Tractor owned the land on the other side of the road, and it was proposed to put -in an implement building, ;the Board told him that he had to put in a buffer between that building and his house -- and he owned the house. Chairperson Grigorov responded that that was before her time. The voice said that it was about four years ago. Attorney Barney offered that it may have been the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Forman stated that that is not a viable issue here, even if the Board wanted to do it,, one can't' make this thing work with it, there is no room to put a buffer there even if the Board thinks it is a good idea. Attorney Barney stated that the law on a buffer is a zone to zone requirement, not building to building.requirement. Ms. Langhans, commenting on the Traffic Study, stated that they talked about cars entering and exiting the same side, adding that she thought that would be a real headache. Attorney Salk stated that he had aske& the traffic engineer to look at the worst case scenario, and that is one of the things Mr. Forman wants to address -- what the signage is going to be and what the traffic flow is going to be on site. Mr. Lesser stated that from his interpretation, and from his reading, he cannot answer the three points positively. Mr. Lesser said he did not feel there is particularly a need. Ms. Langhans commented that it is not as though there isn't another eating place around. Mr. Lesser agreed. Chairperson Grigorov said that to her "need" means something urgent. Ms. Langhans added that it is a convenience. There, appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared.to make a motion. MOTION by Mr.. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker. RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board -17- April 7, 1992 for the proposed " Minnie's BQ ", consisting of the conversion of an existing structure to a restaurant -type operation with parking and landscaping improvements on a site located on the southeast side of Elmira Road (NYS Route 13) approximately 250 feet south of its intersection with Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 35 -1 -29, Business District "C", the Town of Ithaca Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that. 10 There is not a need for the proposed use in the proposed location; 2. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will be adversely affected; 3. The proposed change is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Planning Board find and hereby does find 10 That there are numerous other eating facilities within the immediate vicinity of the proposed restaurant -type operation and, therefore, there is no compelling need for an additional, eating facility; 2. That the character-of the neighborhood consists of a number of residences in the area that would be adversely affected by the odors, possibly the grease, and the traffic th -at- would be generated by adding another quasi- commercial establishment in the vicinity; 3. That the following.factors (a) the recent decisions that have been made by the Planning Board with respect to fast -food restaurants; (b) the planning that has occurred with respect to the Zoning Ordinance and particularly the Zoning Ordinance amendment requiring that a store of this nature obtain a positive recommendation before the Zoning. Board of Appeals considers an application for special approval, and (c) the planning process which suggests that these kinds of uses need to be looked at more closely prior to the granting of such special approval, all indicate that the proposal to establish such a fast -food restaurant is not consistent with the comprehensive plan of the Town of Ithaca. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - Grigorov. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Minnie's BQ duly closed. Planning Board -18- April 7, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HEARING PLANT, LOCATED ON THE,' SOUTH SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 366 IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE CITY /TOWN BOUNDARY. SAID EXPANSION IS TO CONSIST OF AN EXTENSION OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE BY APPROXIMATELY 408, SQUARE FEET TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF TWO EXISTING BOILERS. TOWN, OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 63 -1 -8.1 AND -8.2, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL" DISTRICT. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; JAMES ADAMS, AGENT. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened. Chairperson Grigorov read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Philip Cox, Facilities Engineering, Cornell University, addressed the Board and stated that Cornell proposes to replace two boilers in,the Central Heating Plant, Mr. Cox said that boilers No. 6 and 7 are proposed to be replaced, adding that these boilers had been installed in the Heating Plant about 1969. The boilers have outlasted their economic life and have become a very high maintenance piece of equipment, along with the fact that their reliability has suffered. Each unit is capable of producing 110,000 pounds of steam an hour. Mr. Cox noted that the replacement units would also produce 110,000 pounds jper hour. The only difference with the two is that Cornell would build-in units which would produce steam at 400 pounds psi, as opposed to the present units which produce 200 psi. The higher pressure would coincide with the type of equipment Cornell installed in a'; 1986 renovation. The plant would be expanded by a distance of 12' X 431 to make room for -the boilers -- a portion of exterior wall in southeast corner of building has to be removed to take out the old boilers and put in the new. Mr. Cox said that one slight difference between some of the earlier materials that Cornell had submitted and the final construction plans is the windows in the plant. The rendering before the Board shows an arched window, and, in fact, that isligoing to be the appearance of them -- they will mimic thel;other' windows that are in the plant. The architecture will resemble the existing plant. Mr. Cox said that the two boilers that are being„ replaced will be replaced with the same capacity they will not provide ,'any more steam to campus. Mr. Cox stated that permission�� to extend exceeding the limits in be 43 feet. Cornell is before the Board tonight for a non - conforming building with a height a Light Industrial District; the height will Chairperson° Grigorov noted that asked if anyone present wished to speak.. Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and Board for discussion. this was a Public No one spoke. brought the matter There; appearing to be no further discussion, Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. Hearing and Chairperson back to the Chairperson Planning Board 0`019- April 7, 1992 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Virginia Langhans: WHEREAS. 1. This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Cornell University Central Heating Plant building footprint by 408 square feet to allow replacement of two boilers, on a site located on the south side of NYS Route 366 immediately east, of the City /Town boundary, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels'No. 6- 63 -1 -8.1 and -8.2, Light Industrial District, and 29 This Iis an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ',;has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review of the site plan, and 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on April 7, 1992, has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicant and an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared byllTown Planning staff, a proposed site plan entitled "Central Heating Plant Boiler 6 & 7 Replacement ", dated February 51 1992, revised March 31, 1992, prepared by Gryphon International,' and other application materials, and 4. The Tompkins County Department of Planning has reviewed the abovelisted materials pursuant to Sections 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal-Law, and has indicated in its report of March 9, 1992 that the project as proposed will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests, and 59 The Town Planning staff has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, That ;the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of 'significance pursuant to the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act of the above - described action and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There "being,no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None: The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION BY William Lesser, seconded by James Baker: WHEREAS. �J f, Planning Board 0`019- April 7, 1992 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Virginia Langhans: WHEREAS. 1. This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Cornell University Central Heating Plant building footprint by 408 square feet to allow replacement of two boilers, on a site located on the south side of NYS Route 366 immediately east, of the City /Town boundary, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels'No. 6- 63 -1 -8.1 and -8.2, Light Industrial District, and 29 This Iis an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board ',;has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review of the site plan, and 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on April 7, 1992, has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the applicant and an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared byllTown Planning staff, a proposed site plan entitled "Central Heating Plant Boiler 6 & 7 Replacement ", dated February 51 1992, revised March 31, 1992, prepared by Gryphon International,' and other application materials, and 4. The Tompkins County Department of Planning has reviewed the abovelisted materials pursuant to Sections 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal-Law, and has indicated in its report of March 9, 1992 that the project as proposed will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests, and 59 The Town Planning staff has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, That ;the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of 'significance pursuant to the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act of the above - described action and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There "being,no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None: The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION BY William Lesser, seconded by James Baker: WHEREAS. �J Planning Board -20- April 7, 1992 18 This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Cornell University Central Heating Plant building footprint by 408 square feet to allow replacement of two boilers, on a site located on the south side of NYS Route 366 immediately east of the City /Town boundary, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 63 -1 -8.1 and -8.2, Light Industrial District, and 2. This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review of the site plan, and 39 The Planning Board, at Publ reviewed the Long Environmental applicant and an environmental prepared by Town Planning staff "Central Heating Plant Boiler 5, 1992, revised March 31, International, and other applic is Hearing on April 7, 1992, has Assessment Form submitted by the assessment of the proposed action a proposed site plan entitled 6 & 7 Replacement ", dated February 1992, prepared by Gryphon ation materials, and 4. The Tompkins County Department of Planning has reviewed the above - listed materials pursuant to Sections 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law, and has indicated in its report of March 9, 1992 that the project as proposed will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests, and 59 The proposed project will expand a building that exceeds the maximum height allowed in the Light Industrial District (a legal„ non - conforming condition), therefore, the authorization of the Zoning Board of Appeals is required; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Cornell University Central Heating Plant by 408 square feet, and related site improvements, as shown on a site plan entitled "Central Heating Plant Boiler 6 & 7 Replacement ", dated February 5, 1992, revised March 31, 1992, prepared by Gryphon International, conditioned upon the granting of approval for the expansion of said non - conforming building by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. There appearing to be no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote: Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Cornell. University Central Heating Plant duly closed. Planning Board -21- April 7, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: CORNELL UNIVERSITY - SE PRECINCT EARTH FILL. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING PROPOSAL TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO.16- 64 -1 -1 AND -2. PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INVOLVE PLACING OF EARTH FILL TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE AND TO CONSTRUCT ROADWAYS EVENTUALLY PROVIDING ACCESS TO EXISTING STORAGE YARDS AND POTENTIAL BUILDING SITES. APPROXIMATELY 38,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE PLACED ON APPROXIMATELY 10.4 ACRES BETWEEN ROUTE 366' AND CASCADILLA CREEK, WEST OF GAME FARM ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT "R -30. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; ROBERT CHIANG, AGENT. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted" matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Lawrence Fabbroni, of Cornell Facilities Engineering and Campus Planning, Cornell University, addressed the Board and presented the project summary, 'which is attached hereto as Exhibit #4. Therebeing no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were„ prepared to make a motion. MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Herbert Finch: WHEREAS: 1. This laction, is the Consideration of a Recommendation-to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the placement of earth fill on portions of; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels 64. -1 -1 and 64. -1 -2; approximately 38,000 cubic yards of material excavated -from the site "of the Cornell vet School Primary. Teaching Facility will be placed on approximately 10.4 acres of Cornell University land located east of Cascadilla Creek to improve drainage and construct access roadways to existing storage areas and potential building locations, Residence District R -30. 2. The proposed project involves the extraction and deposit of more than 2,500 cubic yards of material and has been referred to the Planning Board for its recommendation before the Board of Appeals makers its, final decision, pursuant to Article XIII, Section 70, paragraph 5 of the Zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca. 3. The Planning Board has reviewed the materials in support of the project submitted by the Applicant including: if a. "Engineering Report - Southeast Precinct Earth Fill Project ", dated 21 February 1992, prepared by Cornell Facilities Engineering and Campus Planning, b.. Draft 'copies of Fig. 11 "Precinct 7 Topography" and Fig. '!USACOE Wetland Boundaries ", undated, prepared for D /GETS "by the LA Group, c. Project Drawings including: i) SE Precinct Site Map - Horizontal 2) SE Precinct Site Map - Grading & iL Alignment Drainage 20 the Planning Board -22- April 7, 1992 3) SE Precinct Site Map - Possible Future Construction 4) SE Precinct Roadway - Profiles & Cross Sections 5) SE Precinct Roadway - Typical Details undated and prepared by Cornell Facilities Engineering, d. Long Environmental Assessment Form - Part 1, "Project Information By Applicant" prepared by Robert Chiang of Cornell Facilities Engineering, dated 21 February 1992. 4. The Town Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and has determined that the proposed plan. a. Provides for appropriate erosion control during and after construction; b. Protects against adverse drainage on the subject property and surrounding properties; c. Provides for appropriate revegetation; d. Provides for appropriate slope controls; e. Does not adversely affect properties surrounding the designated site both during and after removal or deposit of the fill. 5. The Town Engineer has completed Part 2 - Project Impacts and Their Magnitude, of the Long Environmental Assessment Form and has determined that the project will not result in any large or important impact and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, and recommends that the Board 'of Appeals as lead agency prepare a- negative declaration of environmental.significance. 6. The Town Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has raised no objections to the project as long as proper sediment and erosion controls are provided. 79 The Town Engineer recommends issuance of a Fill Permit pursuant to Article XIII, Section 70, paragraph 5 of the Zoning Ordinance of the' Town of Ithaca for the proposed project. THEREFORE, IT IS 'RESOLVED: That the. Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the application for a.fill permit for the Cornell Southeast Precinct Earth Fill project as shown and described in following conditions. the application materials presented, subject to the 1. Submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of a construction sequence plan including.topsoil stockpile locations and specific erosion control measures and proposed fill schedule prior to the start of construction. 29 Submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of construction details and specifications for drainage structures and culverts prior to the start of construction. Planning Board -23 April 7, 1992 3. Submis!;sion to and approval by the Town Engineer of a vegetative treatment specification and schedule prior to the start of constr',',uction. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigo'rov, Kenerson, Langhans, Finch, Lesser, Baker. Nay - None.: The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of Cornell University - SE Precinct, Earth Fill duly closed. PUBLIC HEARING. COLLEGEVIEW SOUTH MOBILE HOME PARK SITE PLAN. CONSIDERATION OF'SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL 13 MOBILE HOME LOTS IN AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK PURSUANT TO CONDITIONS LISTED IN LOCAL LAW NO. 61 1987 AND AS AMENDED BY LOCAL LAW NO. 11 1992. PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 136 SEVEN MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO.', 6- 33= 12 -1.2 AND 6- 33 -2 -2 IN THE RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -5. PAUL AND LINDA JA'COBS. OWNERS: WILLIAM ALBERN. P.E.. AGENT. Chairpersoni Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings a 1 s posted and published and as noted above. Bill �'Albern addressed the Board and stated that the matter before the ;Board (;tonight is the ..addition of _13 double wider homes to the existing mobile home park. Mr. Albern said that the plan is basically the same drawing that was submitted about a year ago -- there was a delay" subject to having the sewer and water available. Mr. Albern offered that there is a intermittent stream flowing through the ' property. Mr. Albern noted that Mr. Jacobs has committed the entire ,project to go on public water. There' being no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker. WHEREAS. 10 This a',ction is the consideration of Site Plan Approval for the propos „ed increase from 52 to 65 in the number of mobile home lots allowed in Collegeview South Mobile Home Park located at 136 Seven ,Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 33 -2 -1.2 and 6- 33 -2 -2;, Residence District R -5, and 29 This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board'i is legislatively determined to act as Lead_Agency in environmental review with respect to the proposed site plan,.and Planning Board -24- April 7, 1992 39 Local Law No. 6 -1987, as amended by Local Law No. 1- 1992, accomm''odates the proposed increase of 13 mobile home units, and 4. The Plannin' „g Board, at Public Hearing on April 7, 1992, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form consisting of Part I, as prepared by the applicant, and Parts II and III as completed. by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed the proposed site plan entitled "Expansion, Collegeview South Mobile Home Park ", dated December 21 191191, revised March 23, 1992, prepared by William F. Albern, P.E., ;;and other application materials, and 59 The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental -significance with respect to the proposed site plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination o'f environmental significance pursuant to the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above- described action and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further - questions or comments, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigo',rov, Kenerson, Baker,.Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None .6 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: 10 This action is the consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed increase from 52 to 65 in the number of mobile home lots °allow4d in Col.legeview South Mobile Home Park located at 136 Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 33 -2 -1.2 and 61,33- 2 -2`, Residence District R -5, and 2. This is.an Unli.sted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,'; acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to 'the proposed site plan, has, on April 7, 1992, made a negative determination of significance, and 3. The Planning Board,, at Public Hearing on April 7, 1992, has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form and an environmental assessment of the proposed action prepared by the Town Planning staff, a proposed site plan entitled "Expansion, CollegeviewSouth_Mobile Home Park ", dated December 2, 1991, revised March 23, 1992, prepared by William F. Albern, P.E., and other application materials, and Planning Bogard -25- April 7, 1992 4. Local ;,Law No. 6 -1987, as amended by Local Law No. 1 -1992, accommodates, the proposed 'increase of 13 mobile home units, and 5. Local Law. No. 6 -1987, as amended by Local Law No. 1 -19921 requires that the Planning Board, in its review of the site plan, 'make the following findings: a. That no significant impact has occurred by reason of the installation of the first 52 units hereunder (inclusive of I he original park area), and b. That there will be no further significant impact by the Installation of up to 13 additional units, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby determines that no significant impact has occurred by reason of the.installation of the first 52, units inclusive of the original Park area, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board also determines hereby that there will be no further significant impact by the installation of up to 13 additional units, and 39 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed expansion of the Collegeview ,,,South Mobile Home_ Park by 13 _lots (from 52 to 65 ) and related site improvements, as shown on the site plan entitled "Expansion, Collegeview South Mobile Home Park ", dated 11 December 2, 1991, revised March 23, 1992, prepared by William F. Albern, P.E., subject to the following conditions: a. Approval by the Town Engineer of proposed soil erosion and sedimentation control measures, and b. Modification of said site plan to show the footprint of the building on Lot #58 rotated clockwise approximately 450, in order that the building be moved farther from the existing drainageway. There l!' being no further questions or comments, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carred unanimously. Chairperson Grigorov declared the consideration of Site Plan Approval for an additional 13 mobile home lots in an existing mobile home park duly closed. AGENDA ITEM:PERSONS TO BE HEARD Planning Board -26- April 7, 1992 There were no persons present to speak before the Board. Chairperson, Grigorov closed this segment of the meeting. APPROVAL OF! MINUTES.- 7/2/91 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Baker. RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of ;July 2, 1991, are approved with the following addition: 10 That,lon Page 5 of the July 2, 1991 minutes the three Nay votes with respect to the Laketop Proposed Site Plan be explained that 'when the Board talked about giving Mr..Weisburd the three lots, they actually were giving him double occupancy on each lot, which ,is a total of six instead of four There 11beingino further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None..„ The MOTION was carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 7/16/91 MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Herbert Finch: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of July_1!6, 199.1,.are approved with the following correction: 10 That, on Page 13, Paragraph 3, sentence number one should read "Chairperson Grigorov stated that the most promising aspect she heard was the idea of a few large lots combined with cluster of smaller lots on level area at the top, but plan is about the same as last time." There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigo';rov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None The MOITION was carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 9/3/9.1 MOTIONiby Herbert Finch, seconded by Virginia Langhans: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board 11 Meeting of September 3, 1991, are approved as presented. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - None. Planning Board -27- April 7, 1992 The MOTION was carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER Town Planner Forman stated that, hopefully, the Planning Board and the Town Board members will choose a candidate the first Planning Board meeting in May. Mr. Floyd offered that the Comprehensive Planning Committee took a look at a! number of alternatives with respect to land use. Mr. Forman said that the GEIS is moving along on schedule, adding that the GEIS is scheduled for the second meeting in May. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the April 7, 1992 meeting of ';the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned. Mary S. Bryant, Recording Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board. To: Chairman, Planning Board Town of Ithaca We, the undersigned, object to the approval of Minnie's Bar - pB -Q to be located in the 700 block of the Elmira Road 'Route 13) IOur reasons for this objection ire:as.f,ollows: 1. Traffic hazard a. Rush hour traffic is now bumper to bumper (@ 50 mph). b. Cars turning in or '.'.coming out will slow traffic and create additional hazards. C. Cars crossing traffic will have a major impact on safety and traffic flow. d, Open -pit emitting smoke could inhibit visibility de- „pending upon wind direction$ f2. Odors and smoke could be obnoxious and toxic and make outdoor use of our properties untenable. 3. Grease released into the air will damage nearby buildings nand can create major problems•, for those persons with respir- „atory ailments. II4, Odors will draw both domestic and wild animals to the area. 5 Open-pit may create ash deposits throughout the neighborhood, 6 No water, sewer or electricity. Drainage- ground contamination of wetlands, inlet and lake, IIj ti 1 7 y LL 6d (, /0) (1 n O c� U LL L lam♦ L- l.. CJ Y a l 3 CA 1 11 ,r1 - 4 / �s s v . II To: Chairman, Planning Board Town of Ithaca We, the undersigned, object to the approval of Minnie's Bar- i! B-Q tof'be located in the 700 block of the Elmira Road !Route 13). Our reasons for this objection are as.follows: 1. Traffic hazard a. Rush hour traffic is now bumper to bumper (C 50 mph). b. '„ Cars turning in or doming out SJi ll show traffic a:: <.f create additional hazards. Coll Cars crossing traffic will have a major impact on safety and traffic flow. d.'„ Open -pit emitting smoke could inhibit visibility de- pending upon wind direction. 2. Odors and smoke could be obnoxious and toxic and make outdoor use of �o.ur properties untenable. 3. Grease released into the air will damage nearby buildings and can create major roblems:, for those persons with respir- J p P atory ailments. 4. Odors will draw both domestic and wild animals to the area. 5. Open -pit may create ash deposits throughout the neighborhood. 6. No"water, sewer or electricity. _ Drainage- ground contamination of wetlands, inlet and lake. ra M-+g Ji 10LZtUI �L��� i 117t U April 7, 111992 Chairman, ,Planning Board Town of Ithaca A good zoning plan requires a buffer zone between high impact businesses, such as MinnieIS BQ, and residential areas. In addition, Town Boards should make their decisions based on the good of the r. majority, not the good of one party. We realize, that Minnie's BQ does not need a zoning variance and will not be seeking one, but that does not change the situation. As concerned landowners and renters, we have come before you tonight to sub- .. mit our list of objections regarding the proposed Minnie's BQ. We wish to note that the attached petition has been signed by every residential householdl'in the 'surrounding area. By approving the establishment of Minnie's BQ in our neighborhood, the Town would be infringing on the rights of the area residents to enjoy full use of their properties as they were zoned when they purchased them. 4 Ir ti ELLIOT RUBINSTEIN, M.D. Adult and Pediatric Allergy Cortland Ithaca Elmira 109 West Road 840 Hanshow Road 216 W. Gray Street 607- 753 -9604 607.257 -6563 607. 733.5086 Mar ch 6 , 1992 RE DAB To Whom It May Concern: The above named patient is be allergic', problems . Due to the nat that it is best if she avoids irri Sybil Phi April 30, ing seen in ure of her tants, incl llips 1941 this office for problems, I feel uding smoke If you have any further questions4 please do not hesitate to contact 'me . ER; isf Sincerely yours , ?00� Elliot Rubinstein, M.D. v Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Biggs Building A, 30LHarris B. Dates Drive Ithaca, New York 14850,1,' James W. Hanson, Jr. w Telephone Commissioner of Planning (607) 2745360 1 51' 9 TO: Richard Eken, Planner I ��'i � � ; •�: � . -n ; � Town of Ithaca FROM: James W. °Hanson, Jr., Commissioner yep.. —r DATE: April 3, 1992 RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Minnie's BQ. Tax Map No. 6- 35-1 -29. II . iG .. - ..a. This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -land -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. $ iy or State iiite e :P p ,V1 e proposal; as submi tted, will have no signlficant deletenous impact on lntercominunity�' _- vva^.s s. w _...... x, wr RF "wc'g`''nrritrrr T`sh a�.LfT•:iF�""f C annui De artmen sts Therefore, no recommendation 1s mdicafed by the Tompkins County :: b y..+... x n ^ -': w• .. e, .:a „J! . `s:.%iiyy- .fJi,l.�s, -� P g p t, and you' are free-to act witfiout prejU' d_ f . Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. 4M f, Recycled paper d: V L PROJECT SUMMARY The project is;; located in the Southeast Precinct of Cornell Lands in Tompkins County Tax Parcels 64 -1 -1 and 64 -1 -2. The project consists of placing earth fill to construct roadways and regrading. Proposed roadways will provide access to existing storage yards and potential building sites. During construction of this project, certain existing drainage problems will be alleviated. Fill material used;;to construct the embankments of this project will be imported from the Cornell Vet School Primary Teaching Facility site. Restoration of the area will consist of fine grading and seeding of all disturbed ground with suitable ground cover vegetation. Sediment runoff during construction will be controlled by silt dams located in the existing and newly constructed drainage ways. All road construction will be located at least 400' (four - hundred feet) away from Cascadilla Creek. All fill operations will be located at least 150' (one - hundred fifty feet) away from Cascadilla Creek. Materials included with this application include plans for the horizontal alignment; grading, drainage, and sediment runoff control of the proposed roadway and cleanup area; longitudinal profiles for the roadway and service drive; cross sections of existing and finished grades; a plan of possible future construction; typical details for drainage structures, roadway pavements, sediment runoff protection and associated constructions, and soil boring logs of the proposed fill material. MOTIVATION FOR PROJECT Proposed roadways will provide access to an existing fenced storage yard used by the Laboratory of Nuclear Studies. Current access to the yard is achieved by a driveway located between the Campus Stores Warehouse and a Grounds Department structure for storage of salt and grit. The proposedroadways will also provide access to potential building sites. A warehouse building has been proposed to provide for the storage needs of the Maintenance and Service Operations organization. The prob' "able location will be east of the existing General Receiving building. This project also includes plans to place two to four feet of fill in areas south and east of the library annex building, and east of the tributary to Cascadilla Creek. These areas have been used as stockpile locations for building materials, soil, stones, and logs. The fill will be used to restore these areas to a natural looking landscape. A structure for enclosed storage has been proposed for the Laboratory of Nuclear Studies facility to be located within their fenced yard. This project would provide access to this proposed new building. The Southeast Precinct is currently under study to develop a GEIS report regarding potential development of the area. The Cornell Campus Planning Department anticipates the Southeast Precinct to be an area !,of future development for research and teaching facilities. This project would begin to provide access to those developments. Construction of this project will provide remediation of existing drainage problems east and west of the General Receiving building. The project will provide space to develop landscape improvements along the west side of the General Receiving building facing Palm Road. The project will also initiate reorganization and cleanup of a storage yard located south of the General Receiving building. Fill operations of this project will complete reclamation of open spaces adjacent to the'. Town of Ithaca Recreation way. -2- DESIGN RATIONALE In addition to the design requirements established by the project functions listed above, three other factors influenced the design process. This project constitutes part of a proposed connection between Tower Road to Central Campus and Game Farm Road, and Stevens Road to the areas east and south of Cornell. 'The proposed horizontal alignment.for this project has been designed to meet the future needs of a connector road from engineering and aesthetic considerations. The proposed,; horizontal alignment for this project also roughly parallels a sanitary sewer main installed in 1991 as part of a campus wide remediation project to discontinue the use of individual septic tank sewage treatment systems. The sewer line was designed and constructed specifically to serve the Poultry Science and Agricultural Waste Research facilities, and also for potential future development.' By aligning this proposed roadway with the existing sewer system, two pieces of infrastructure will be in place to serve future development. Scheduling of;'this project is to be coordinated with construction of the Cornell Vet School Primary Teaching Facility. By utilizing fill obtained from the Vet School excavation, this project will be constructed ava great savings to the university. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Earthwork Topsoil stripped from the construction areas will be stockpiled to be used for final grading and reclamation. Fill required to construct the embankments of this project will be hauled from the Cornell Vet School Primary Teaching Facility site. Excavation for the Vet School project is expected to begin in early spring of 1992. Soil boring logs taken over the Vet School project area are included at the end of this report. The soil borings show the suitability of the fill material for roadway subdifes. S,.a► ".-1e. Proposed final grading is shown on the enclosed plans. Maximum embankment side slopes shall be 3' (three feet) horizontal to 1' (one foot) vertical. The top 6" (six inches) of soil shall be topsoil suitably placed and prepared to support vegetative cover. Estimated quantities of fill to be placed as a part of this project are 8,000 cubic yards to construct roadways and '130,000 cubic yards for regrading operations. Site Restoration All areas disturbed by construction shall be fine graded with topsoil and seeded with a suitable ground cover vegetation to minimize future problems of erosion and sediment runoff. Landscape improvements along the west side of the General Receiving building facing Palm Road and along the entire length of Palm Road will be installed as a part of an upcoming road paving project. Drainage Site drainage shall be accomplished by means of surface drainage ways, culverts, and a system of catch basin inlets and underground piping. Contributory drainage areas affecting the project site are delineated on the enclosed maps. The overall drainage area is limited by NYS Rt. 366 on the north, Game Farm Road to the east, and the existing topographic high on the west. -3- 15X0 it 0/ Construction of this project will allow correction of surface drainage problems near the existing General Receiving building. Storm runoff from a large area of the southeast precinct is currently directed to an open ditch located immediately east of the General Receiving building. The storm drainage then flows to a culvert and eventually enters a tributary to Cascadilla Creek. The proposed service drive embankment will intercept the surface runoff farther east of the General Receiving building and direct the water through a series of open ditches and culverts to the existing tributary. Storm drainage along the existing Palm Drive roadway is currently conducted by open ditches and culverts to a ditch immediately west of the General Receiving building. This project will finish previous construction to relocate Palm- Road to achieve a straight horizontal alignment and better vertical alignment. By straightening Palm Road, the roadway will be moved away from the General Receiving building. This will allow the drainage to be moved away from the building foundation and provide space for landscaping improvements in front of the building. Sediment Runoff Control Sediment runoff protection will be installed along existing and newly created drainage ways. The protection will be installed during construction and maintained until vegetative cover is established. All road construction will be at least 400 feet away from Cascadilla Creek. The space between the creek and construction consists of approximately 250 feet of agricultural fields and 150 feet of sloping ground covered with trees and low ground cover vegetation. Fill operations will not take place within 150 feet of Cascadilla Creek. Sediment runoff protection structures will be placed in the newly constructed ditches and in the tributary to Cascadilla Creek in the approximate locations shown on the plans. The structures will be constructed of hay bails and filter fabric, pegged to prevent leakage or movement as shown on details. CONCLUSIONS Construction of this project will provide access to existing and proposed facilities and building sites. The construction will allow remediation of existing drainage and storage problems, and provide space to develop landscaping improvements to the General Receiving site. This project will initiate reorganization and cleanup of the General Receiving storage yard and end stockpiling near the Library Annex to create an open space buffer. 44 r EXCERPT /PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF April 7, 19920 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE PROPOSED "MINNIE'S BQ," CONSISTING OF THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO A RESTAURANT -TYPE OPERATION WITH PARKING AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ON A SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF ELMIRA ROAD (NYS RTE. 13) APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH SEVEN MILE DRIVE. TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 35 -1 -29, BUSINESS "C" DISTRICT. KEN BALDASSARRE, OWNER /APPLICANT. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Attorney James Salk addressed the Board and stated that he was representing the applicant Ken Baldassarre. Attorney Salk this is an appl before the Board b that way because said that ication eginning in f act for those who remember and don't remember that looks almost identical to one that was last February 1991, adding that it looks it is almost the identical application that was before the Board last year for a number of Planning Board meetings. Attorney Salk stated that he would quickly review the history of the proposed application for this forum. Is Attorney Salk stated that there were a number of very lengthy discussions here regarding the impact on traffic on the Route 13 corridor, and some other matters as well, commenting that that formed the basis of the Planning Board's determination to deny site plan approval last June or July, he believed, of 1991. Attorney Salk noted that there were two other objections, one being that the odors would constitute a significant deleterious impact- on the people in the surrounding area, and secondly, neither public water nor public sewer were available. Attorney Salk said that since last year's rejection Mr. Baldassarre retained the services of a Traffic Engineer by the name of Neal Denno, adding that Mr. Denno prepared a Report on his Traffic Impact Study for the Board, and commenting that the original report was shared with the Planning Department and, in fact, he (Attorney Salk) had reviewed the Report with staff in November and December of 1991. Attorney Salk said that the staff asked for some very specific questions to be answered, and those answers were given to them in December 1991, adding that he again met with staff in January 1992 to discuss that information to find out if there were anything else with regard to the traffic, with regard to the odors, with regard to the site plan, or anything else with regard to the application that they felt would be necessary or would be helpful in helping the Board come to a decision, and from his (Attorney Salk's) and Mr. Baldassarre's point of view, to come up with a favorable decision. Attorney Salk stated that the staff indicated to him that they were satisfied in early January 1992, and the application was made within a very short period of time thereafter: Attorney Salk stated that for reasons he has never explored they did not make the February 1992 Planning Board meeting, however, on February 14, 1992 EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (2) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • the Town Board changed the law. Attorney Salk stated that when he met with the Board last year the proposed operation was a legal use in Business Zone "C" and it is still a legal use in Business Zone "C ", adding that last year that was all that was required. Attorney Salk commented that now because of the February 14, 1992 Zoning ordinance amendment, as he understands it, and as he has been told by Town Planner Floyd Forman and the staff, they are now required to get from the Board not only site plan approval but also a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals whether they ought to grant special approval or not. Attorney Salk noted that the change in the law occurred on February 14, 1992 and the application was pending at the time, and, at the time that Mr. Baldassarre spent a very considerable amount of money necessary to commission the traffic study, the law was different. Attorney Salk noted that they had worked very, very hard with the Board and with the Planning Department since that time to come up with what they think is a fair application. Attorney Salk stated that he knows the Planning Board did not make the law, but it has to be applied. Attorney Salk stated that he was not asking the Board to compromise their role in any way, but he did wish the Board to take into consideration the long and circuitous road that Mr. Baldassarre and Minnie's BQ has gone through to get to this point in deciding the manner in which the Board is going to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Salk stated that he would turn to specific problems of last year. • Attorney Salk said that the first one is the water and sewer. Attorney Salk stated that as he understands it from the Town Engineer, municipal water and sewer are available to the site so he did not believe that is a problem any longer, and he felt that any further discussion of that can be dispensed with. Attorney Salk noted that the second problem was that of the odors constituting a significant deleterious impact on the people in the surrounding area, adding, with regard to that matter there was a great deal of discussion throughout the many meetings held on the project. Attorney Salk said that many of the issues were fairly aired, but some of the issues he did not think were given consideration. Attorney Salk said that the Board did consider that this is a business zone, and a restaurant or food service establishment is a perfectly legal legitimate use in this zone, and that has not been changed by the new law; the use is one that is contemplated on this site. Attorney Salk said that the particular applicant has many, many mitigating factors that he has brought to bear for this application. Attorney Salk stated that Mr. Baldassarre's intention is to operate only on weekends; it is not all week long, it is only on weekends, and even on the weekends the hours are going to be limited, adding that the applicant is not talking about dawn to midnight operation as many and most restaurants would be, or other food establishments of that kind. Attorney Salk stated that on the Environmental Assessment Form it shows that the prevailing wind is • away from the few residences that are close by this site, so that means at least when the wind is prevailing, which is not always, but when it is prevailing, which is most of the time, the odors such as 5 EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (3) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD they are, if we want to call them odors, will be carried away from the house" which is right next to the site and the few houses across the street and down the road which are quite a bit more remote than the house that is next to the site. Attorney Salk said that, in addition, the Board has the information regarding the fans, and was satisified'; that the fans cured the problem of the grease and the smoke, but not the odor, commenting that they are not pretending it does eliminate the odor, or the aroma, as the way they like to think of it, it certainly does put it up in the air, puts the odor up in the air where it can be dispersed with less of an impact than it would be if it were coming out at ground level. Attorney Salk said that the other thing to consider is that Mr. Baldassarre is proposing a very limited menu, he is not going to have a lot of different kinds of greasy this and that and the other kinds of foods; one food is basically going to be cooked there, and that is chicken. Attorney Salk said' that the EAF proposed by the professional staff concludes that there'is no significant adverse impact, which is quite different from what was concluded last year; they have had more time to consider it; it was discussed with the staff and that is the conclusion' that the professional staff comes up with. Attorney Salk stated that he felt the most important point of all, which he did not see in any of the Minutes in reviewing the matter, is that the odor as it has been referred to, but the glorious fragrance -- some say it is devine, given to us by the Gods. Attorney Salk commented that the aroma being talked about is the aroma of barbecued chicken, one is not talking about industrial waste or other toxic kinds of chemical. Attorney Salk said that the aroma of barbecued chicken is simply not a health hazard, the person who lives right next door may be annoyed by it, which Attorney Salk and his client understand and they are sympathetic to "that, but it is not a health hazard; it is not something that is deleterious to the general welfare of the neighborhood; it simply isn't; the fragrance of barbecued chicken is being talked about and let's keep that in perspective. Continuing, Attorney Salk turned to the Traffic Report. Attorney Salk stated that the Traffic Report clearly and without qualification says -- much to the surprise of the Planning Department and he thought they would be the first to admit it, nontheless, it says that there is no adverse impact on Route 13 that will result from the approval of this site plan -- Minnie's will not change anything. 11 Attorney Salk, referring to the traffic, stated that it's bad, the applicant and his Attorney know it's bad; Floyd knows it's bad; it is bad and nobody is arguing that it is bad; the question before the 'Board is -- is it going to be any worse, and the answer from the expert is no, including the point that Town Planner Forman has raised on any number of occasions about the turning actions into the site.1 Attorney Salk stated that the Transportation Consultant, Neal Denno,, has done an actual count, looked at it and said -- no adverse impact, there will be no delay or no significant delay for someone turning into the site, even from the righthand lane going south. Attorney Salk stated that those are the facts that are before the Board there is no impact. Attorney Salk commented that, yes, someone coming out of the site just as someone coming out onto Route Z I EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ PLANNING BOARD (4) April 7, 1992 • 13 from Seven Mile Drive is going to have to wait; they have to wait now, they are going to have to wait then, and they will not have to wait in any way measurably longer and according to Mr. Denno's report there will be no perceptible change. Attorney Salk stated that he believed the above were the facts before the Board and they were stated very forcefully. Attorney Salk said that these facts take care of the concerns the Board had last year, which he assumed are the same concerns the Board has this year. Attorney Salk stated that he thought the concerns have been addressed and they have been addressed fairly, and he believed the Board's conclusion ought to be different; he thought it was incumbent upon the Board to review the matter and to determine that the site plan ought to be approved, adding that that is not the end of the Board's job, as was discussed earlier -- now the Town Board has given the Planning Board an additional job; the Planning Board now has to make some recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding whether or not Special Approval ought to be granted. Attorney Salk stated that the Zoning Ordinance, Section 78, gives the factors in making that determination. Attorney Salk said that, Number 1, there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location; that one is easy. Attorney Salk commented that the summer is coming and noted that there are two major State Parks right near the site and the parks attract traffic. Attorney Salk stated that as far as he is aware there are no concession stands at the parks, adding, people need food and here is a great way to feed those hungry people who are • going to and from the park. Attorney Salk mentioned that, luckily enough, right down the road there is Eddygate Farms so one can pick up peppers and tomatoes, and there is Earlybird Farm where one can Pick up the best corn in the Town of Ithaca and have a picnic. Attorney Salk stated that, in addition, it is one of the major corridors for getting to and from home, what better location for an establishment of this kind. Attorney Salk commented that everyone is concerned about tourists, but that happens to be one of the main corridors between Elmira, NY and Ithaca, NY. Attorney Salk said that the second point is the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected. Attorney Salk noted that this is an area that has been parsed by the New York Court of Appeals and by many, courts following the Court of Appeals language in a case called "North Shore Steak House ". Attorney Salk cited the quote from that as being "the inclusion in a Zoning Ordinance of a use permitted by special° permit is tantamount to a legislative finding that the use is in harmony with the general zoning plan, and, that it will not adversely affect the area. Attorney Salk stated that he thinks that means that where there is a legal use, as he felt is so in this instance, and where the Town Board has stated it is a legal use, unless it can be shown to the contrary it is deemed to be within the general zoning plan, and that it does not adversely affect the area. Attorney Salk stated that that happens to comply with the environmental assessment form which also recommends finding a negative declaration; that is that there is no negative or adverse effect to the area. EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (5) April 7, 1992 ` PLANNING BOARD • Attorney Salk said that another important point with regard to the second requirement is to remember that the new Town law has set out a schedule of what is allowed without permit and what is allowed with permit for each business zone. Attorney Salk stated that with regard to traffic there are many uses that are allowed without any special permit where the traffic impact is equal to or greater than that projected from Minnie's BQ -- it allows banks, for instance, and there is no special approval required. It allows doctors' offices. It allows dry cleaning; no special permit required. The dry cleaning harks back to the question of odors; dry cleaning is alright but Minnie's BQ is not okay. Attorney Salk commented that he is not sure everyone understands what the difference is - in a given case he can see what the difference is, but not in Minnie's BQ. Attorney Salk offered that heating shops, monument works, printers, a dyer is allowed without any approval, caterer, and the one that hit Attorney Salk the most is a confectioners the smell of candy can be put up in the air and no approval is necessary. Attorney Salk stated that "chicken" needs an approval. Attorney Salk said that it seemed clear to him that a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, given all the factors, is mandated, and he would ask the Board to do that. Finally, Attorney Salk stated that in reviewing the file today at the Town Planning Department office he had the opportunity to look at Town Planner Floyd Forman's memo to the Planning Board. Attorney Salk stated that he was somewhat disappointed to see that Mr. Forman IS sits on the fence or does not make a recommendation to the Board one way or another; that is his prerogative, but there are a couple of things to be pointed out so there is no misconception about them. Attorney Salk offered that Mr. Forman said that he had a number of concerns regarding short- and long -term impacts of the project; they include the potential impact of traffic to and from the site, especially left turning vehicles. Attorney Salk urged the Board to take a look at the Report from the Traffic Consultant, Neal Denno the specific answer to Mr. Forman's comment regarding the left turns. Attorney Salk stated that the Report makes it clear that there will not be any effect, and no delays, or at least no significant delays in making the turning motion into Minnie's BQ. The other item cited by Mr. Forman is future land use planning decisions for the area, which Attorney Salk said is the third criteria the Board is to look at. Attorney Salk said that he did not think the Board can hold Minnie's BQ to future planning concerns if they are not on the table now. Attorney Salk wondered how they are supposed to predict what the Board is going to do; the Board, he would venture to say, probably can't predict what they are going to do. Attorney Salk stated that as far he is aware there is no comprehensive plan of development in the Town in place right now, that is what the third criteria is, and he thought that is what Mr. Forman is referring to in his comments to the Board. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the Comprehensive Plan is being written. Attorney Salk responded -- it is being written, and that is terrific, but they do not know what is being written, and they are here before the Board tonight. EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (6) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • Board Member Lesser asked for a point of clarification in that it was mentioned earlier on in the presentation that Minnie's BQ would be operating just weekends. Mr. Lesser just wanted to emphasize that the applicant, on the second page, stated that "I hope to eventually be in operation seven. days a week from April through October ". Attorney Salk stated that he thought he said the applicant intends to operate on weekends. Mr. Lesser said that in his planning, and based on the applicant's statement, he thought that at some point in time this is going to be a full -time operation, at least.through a large portion of the year. Attorney Salk responded that they certainly want to reserve that right to expand; they did not ask just for weekends; his point was that that was what the intention is for the present time to see how things go, adding, the other thing to remember 'is that even if it goes day to day during the week they are not going to be talking about the kind of volume that one talks about on a summer weekend, so he thought the numbers being talked about are significantly diminished. Board Member Langhans stated that there was talk previously about potato salads, this and that, etc. Ms. Langhans wondered if that was for weekends and holidays only or ... Mr. Baldassarre answered, weekends and holidays only. Ms. Langhans said that Minnie's BQ would have not only chicken, but there would be other salads to go with it. Mr. Baldassarre responded, yes, and it would be all carry out -- there will be potato salad, macaroni salad, baked beans -- if someone wants a dinner he can give them a dinner. Ms. Langhans • wondered about drinks such as Coca Cola, Pepsi, stuff like that. Mr. Baldassarre answered, probably, yes. Chairperson Grigorov asked if the filters in the fans were directional at all, or do they just go straight out the top and wherever the wind takes it. Mr. Baldassarre said that the smoke is drawn up and it goes through the filter. Chairperson Grigorov noted that it cannot be directed one way or another. Mr. Baldassarre said that it cannot be directed one way or another. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she has a question since this is the first restaurant that has come before the Board since the change of the law. Chairperson Grigorov said that what it mainly does is give an extra level of review. Attorney Barney noted that it changes the criteria a little bit too; there are site plan considerations now. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board is basing its recommendation on the same criteria that the Board generally bases any recommendation to the ZBA; Article XIV, Section 78 of the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Barney said that those are criteria for the recommendations, but the Planning Board still has the same site plan approval. Attorney Barney said that now there are two sets of criteria to make a decision on, the project should meet both. Attorney Barney, commenting on the reference to the Comprehensive Plan and the statute, said that as he understands the law there does not have to be a written Comprehensive Plan, it can be evidenced by a • variety of things, the Zoning Ordinance is only really one part, the Subdivision Regulations, decisions actually made by Boards along the way, can all be kind of incorporated in a text called the EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (7) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • comprehensive plan of solely one instrument he does not know if but even if it were .. not terribly cheerfu still a legal use. development of the Town, it does not have to be or one document. Attorney Salk responded that there is ... other than thoughts here and there, . the Town Board has spoken on this issue now, lly for me, but they have set this, and this is Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions. Sybil. Phillips of 721 Elmira Road addressed the Board and stated that her property is about 310 feet from the building they are proposing to cook the chicken in. Ms. Phillips said that she was unable to attend the meeting that was held on this matter last year, so she has a couple of questions. Ms. Phillips stated that she was told it was an open pit and wondered what kind of fuel would be used. Attorney Salk responded that it is not really an open pit. Mr. Baldassarre stated that the pit would be enclosed on three sides by three - foot -high walls, open only to the road, and a hood over the pit. Attorney Barney wondered if the pit was inside the building. Mr. Baldassarre answered, yes. Secondly, Ms. Phillips wondered if the traffic study was done in the summer or winter. Attorney Salk responded that the study was done Friday, August 23, 1991 and Saturday, August 24, 1991, adding that • this was the time Ithaca College students were coming into Town. At this point, Ms. Phillips distributed copies of a petition to the Board members. Ms. Phillips stated that she thought No. 6 could be deleted if the water and sewer has been approved and verified. [Copy of petition attached hereto as Exhibit #1]. Ms. Phillips stated that she is quite allergic to smoke and if the smoke settles in her yard, which is below the area, she will be unable to go outside in the summer as well as the winter, adding, she cannot go outside now because of the heating methods of people around the area. Ms. Phillips distributed copies of a note from Dr. Rubinstein, M.D., stating that Ms. Phillips has allergic problems. [Note attached hereto as Exhibit #2]. Ms. Phillips stated that wood smoke bothers her, and wondered if this was going to be different from wood smoke; wood smoke is very toxic to her. Ms. Phillips wondered if this was the same BQ that was at Eddygate a few years ago. Chairperson Grigorov answered, no. Tim Gray of 657 Elmira Road addressed the Board and stated that he was representing the Grayhaven Motel, which is adjacent to the proposed project. Mr. Gray stated that they are definitely.opposed to the project; they were opposed last time and they are opposed again. Mr. Gray said that the project will definitely cause traffic problems at that location, and will cause problems during rush hours. Mr. Gray stated that he could not believe that it will not • cause problems; one can adjust the findings any way so that it seems positive, but it is really negative; there is a lot of traffic on that road and this project is going to add to the congestion of EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (8) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • people turning left, no matter how it is looked at. Mr. Gray noted that leaving the site going south, or people coming south and turning left into the property is very dangerous. Mr. Gray said that the Grayhaven Motel has ten motel units that are only 75 feet from the proposed business, commenting that he thought it would be a detriment to people staying at the. motel. Mr. Gray mentioned that people staying overnight might possibly have respiratory problems. Mr. Gray said he did not see how the project can be approved. Mr. Gray stated that the proposed operation is very close to a wilderness area; it is not very far from the wetlands and he would think there would be a negative effect on the wetlands. Mr. Gray offered that it is a very pleasing area to walk in, but to have chicken smoke filtering down the valley is not exactly what he thought the residents or any of the property owners have in mind for that area. Mr. Gray said that there is a deep ravine behind the site that goes into the Inlet where there is a lot of natural wildlife, adding that it is a long valley that goes down to the railroad tracks and into the wetlands, adding that he thought a lot of the smoke will filter down there. Mr. Gray stated that George Sheldrake spends a lot of time in the wilderness. Chairperson Grigorov asked who owned the land behind the site. Mr. Sheldrake replied that it is the Inlet Valley; there is a fishing stream down through there. Mr. Gray offered that some of it is State land; some of it is owned by the Cortright family, and some of it he believed is owned by Eddydale. George Sheldrake of 174 Calkins Road spoke from the floor and • stated that he owns the two houses located at 713 and 715 Elmira Road. Mr. Sheldrake also stated that the Earlybird Farm is located across the road. Mr. Sheldrake stated that the smoke is the main conern; it is not the fragrance. Mr. Sheldrake said that the Environmental Assessment Form, as it is written, does not take into effect the quality of life that people are experiencing in the area. Mr. Sheldrake commented that smoke may not be damaging to your health in some certain instances, but it is going to be noticed all the time and the smoke will be a nuisance. Mr. Sheldrake, referring to the traffic, offered that last year there were 300 -500 cars per day. Mr. Sheldrake said that it seems to him to be a traffic hazard, and it also is going to be rush hour. Mr. Sheldrake said that the operation of the BQ on weekends and holidays is also when the residents are at home trying to enjoy their lifestyle. Mr. Sheldrake stated that he assumed the prevailing wind is probably from the south. A voice from the back of the room said that it would be prevailing westerly wind. Mr. Sheldrake stated that he thought the smoke was coming the other way and taking the smoke toward the motel. Eleanor Sturgeon of 718 Elmira Road stated that she has been at this address for close to 40 years. Ms. Sturgeon said that it has been a quiet residential neighborhood where the residents have been able to bring up children, animals, and generally enjoy the outside. Ms. Sturgeon offered that up to about ten years ago the traffic was livable. Ms. Sturgeon stated that she lost a dog on the road two • years ago, and she has to have a fence to keep her dog in. Ms. Sturgeon commented on the heavy traffic on Elmira Road; it takes a long time to get out of a driveway. Ms. Sturgeon stated that just EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (9) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • because it is possible for the applicant to have a food business there does not mean that they have to have it; the residents have been there so long and their needs and their wishes should be respected. Ms. Sturgeon mentioned Ms. Phillips allergy problems in that she has allergy problems as well -- all the petroleum going by. Ms. Sturgeon feels that the residents have rights; they have been there a' long time, and their rights as the oldest residents have to be taken,into considerations they are entitled to that because they were there first. Ms. Sturgeon mentioned that the residents might be driven out because of the conditions. Ms. Sturgeon said that she felt the area would be badly affected by the noises, and the accident rate goes up. Elsie McMillan of 812 Elmira Road appeared before the Board and stated that she does not live in a place that is probably going to be affected by the odor or the smoke, as she is far enough away. Ms. McMillan noted that the Traffic Report indicated that there would be absolutely no increase in traffic. Ms.'McMillan said that a doctor's office schedules appointments; there is a steady flow of traffic but there isinot a peak time. Ms. McMillan offered that people tend to eat about the same time of day, and if there are six cars going south on Route 13 and the occupants of the vehicles decide they want chicken at 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. on a Saturday, then there is going to be a problem with the traffic turning left. Ms. McMillian said that Route 13 is a two -lane road and it would be hard getting around the cars. Ms. McMillan stated that she felt the turning left problem • is the only reason the project should not be approved. Ms. McMillan stated that none of the neighbors would be here if the application were for a different business - a business like a farm equipment business or a lawn and garden business, where people would come in off and on all day long. Ms. McMillan said that she did not think this was an anti- business atmosphere. Ms. McMillan stated that she hoped the Board did not see this as a bunch of homeowners who do not want any business there. Claude Putnam of 711 Elmira Road stated that he would like to have some figures on the size of the pit. Mr. Baldassarre responded that the pit would be 30 feet long and would be enclosed on three sides by three -foot high walls, open only to the road, with a hood over the pit. Mr. Putnam wondered how much grease the filters would take out before it goes in the air. Attorney Salk replied that it would take out somewhere between 60 -70 percent. Mr. Putnam asked what would happen to the rest of it. Mr. Putnam stated that he used to boil maple syrup at the proposed project site for 30 years, and the wind that is prevailing is toward his house and toward Sybil's house, and toward George's house. Mr. Putnman also expressed a traffic concern -- during rush hour one cannot even walk across the road let alone drive across, commenting that coming from the south the vision is limited. Mr. Putnam said that he is going to have to sit in his house all day long • with the smoke, and once it gets in the house one cannot get it out, adding that once it gets in his house and can't get back out he is going to have problems with somebody. EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ PLANNING BOARD (10) April 7, 1992 George Sheldrake said that the grease smoke from chicken is 0 heavier than air; it does not go up like a lot of chemical smoke does, or even wood smoke which stays up in the air. • • Harley Steffy (no address given) addressed the Board and stated that the last time he was before the Board he was representing Sybil Phillips. 'Mr. Steffy stated that if the previous meeting notes were checked it was noted that less than 500 of the grease was removed by precipitating it out; that meant that there was still 50% at least, or more, going up into the air and being spread all over. Mr. Putnan's house will get a good coat of it, and every other house within probably a quarter of a mile will get a coat of grease. Mr.. Steffy said that the Traffic Report had no mention of the conditions that already exist there, which is a minimum visibility of barely 500 feet. Mr.uSteffy mentioned line of sight; a man standing, it is not in a car. Mr. Steffy stated that he believed smoke will create an impossible „situation; any smoke that goes onto the road will reduce the stopping time of vehicles; also grease on the road will make the road slippery, adding that he knows this firsthand because right in front of the Star Oil business by Buttermilk Falls he tried to stop on his motorcycle, but could not because they had spilled oil on the road. Mr. Steffy feels that all these things must be considered. Mr. Steffy said he felt it would be ill- advised to come forward and say that this is'a proper use of that particular property. Mr. Putnam commented that there are no services on that road at the present time, and wondered how soon they would be there. Town Engineer Dan Walker responded that the sewer and water service does come to the property, and the construction for the next phase is anticipated to start in June or July of 1992. Mr. Walker said that the property owner can be hooked up when the segments are pressure tested and approved. Mr. Putnam wondered if he were right in that there would not be any services to the property before September or October 1992, Mr. Walker stated that the property can be served by the existing water and sewer; the sewer comes right to the property line and there is a manhole right at the end of it. Mr. Putnam responded that he knew that, but that it is about 200 feet. Mr. Walker replied that the applicant may have to put a long lateral in to make it serve that would be the applicant's responsibility. Mr. Walker offered that the water service is across the road and could be brought across, at the applicant's expense, if he wants to hookup now rather than wait for the construction of the remainder of the main`. Mr. Walker ",noted that the Health Department governs food service establishments as far as water supply is concerned. Sybil Phillips again addressed the Board and wondered if there, were any air quality standards that would disallow putting wood smoke or additional things like that in the air. Mr. Walker responded that the air quality standards are based on a concentration of smoke in the air. Mr. Walker said tht he believed that the ventilation system Mr. Baldass!arre is proposing would dilute the discharge and meet the air quality standards. EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ PLANNING BOARD (11) April 7, 1992 • A voice from the back of the room wondered if it did not dilute it, and, in fact, was doing like everyone knows it will, what would be the procedure then to close it down? Mr. Walker responded that the HealthjDepartment governs that, adding that the entire restaurant facility has to receive a Health Department approval prior to operation. There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to „this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Town Planner Forman stated that the memo from him, to the Planning Board, and dated April 2, 1992, expresses some issues that need to be looked at. Mr. Forman referred to the three items under Section 78 of the Zoning Ordinance, 19 There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location. Mr. Forman communicated that Attorney Salk advised the Board why he thought there was a need for the use in the proposed location. Mr. Forman commented that some of the other things the Board may want to consider is the fact that there are about five or six fast food restaurants a short • distance away from the proposed Minnie's BQ. Mr. Forman said that he was sure that Mr. Baldassarre's product is a lot better than the fast food restaurants. Mr. Forman mentioned that there is also Tops and Wegmans a short distance away who make barbecued chicken. Mr. Forman said that one can at least weigh the issues when one takes a look at "is there a need for the proposed use in the proposed location." 2. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. Mr. Forman stated that the existing character of the neighborhood is a mixed neighborhood in terms of uses, and beyond saying what has been heard from the residents in the area, who are the existing character of the neighborhood, he did not know that any more needs to be said by him about the existing character of the neighborhood. Mr. Forman added that the probable future character of the neighborhood is being addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Forman stated that a hard look is being taken concerning strip development in Inlet Valley, and in other places, so that there is not a situation that the neighbors have expressed tonight about not being able to exit their driveways. Mr. Forman offered that one of the things that the Traffic Study • does say, commenting that this does not specifically relate to the proposed project, is that with everything going on on Route 13 it is virtually impossible to get out of one's EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ PLANNING BOARD (12) April 7, 1992 • driveway or to get out of Seven Mile Drive. Mr. Forman noted that the study states that the proposed project is not terribly going to exacerbate it. Mr. Forman noted that the study also said that there will be little or no additional delay from the project itself, but there is always incremental delay any time there is another strip development, or any time there is another curbcut. 3. The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. Mr. Forman stated that it is not strictly the Comprehensive Plan, but it is also the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, etc., adding that one of the issues being looked at now is strip development. At this point, Chairperson recommend against the project. heard that from someone else this. Mr. Forman stated that he the issues, and balance off what Grigorov said that Mr. Forman Mr. Forman responded that that he was sitting on the tried to do his best to just Attorney Salk had to say. did not he had fence on address Board Member William Lesser asked for further comment on the Traffic Study. Mr. Forman responded that in terms of the information in the study it is accurate, and it is a good study. Mr. Forman said that the question is how much this project is going to make it such • that it is going to make it more difficult for the neighborhood residents. Mr. Forman noted that the Study comes to the conclusion that it is minimal and Mr. Forman thinks that is reasonably accurate. Mr. Forman stated that every time there is a strip development, an additional strip that is being opened, and in this case it is not a situation like a doctor's office where there is a steady stream of approximately two people per hour. The people going to Minnie's BQ would be grouped in peak periods around lunchtime and around dinnertime. Again, Mr. Forman said that he thought the Traffic Study was fair, but he thought that there is always an incremental increase, and even though it does not seem to change the level of service in terms of making a left -hand turn, it always changes it incrementally. Board Member Kenerson asked Ms. Phillips if she remembered what the zoning was when she moved to the area, or was this before the zoning was in force. Ms. Phillips responded that when she moved to the 721 Elmira Rd. address in 1961 it was R -30. Mr. Kenerson asked Mr. Putnam about boiling maple syrup on the proposed site. Mr. Putnam replied that he had boiled maple syrup for years in the exact building that is being proposed as Minnie's BQ. Mr. Kenerson wondered what kind of effect that smoke had. Mr. Putnam responded that that smoke went toward his house and toward Ms. Phillips house. Mr. Kenerson wondered if they had maple smelling clothes. Mr. Putnam answered, yes. Ms. Phillips said that this was during the winter. • Ms. McMillan offered that the maple syrup boiling season is in March and April; wood was used to boil the syrup. Mr. Putnam stated that EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (13) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • the reason he and Mr. Brink never used that building to sell produce was because the building is on the wrong side of the road. Mr. Steffy interjected -- when the State Police sit by the motels and stop traffic or slow it down, it backs up all the way down past Eddydale and the same thing goes for the other direction. Mr. Forman said that much of what was the issue about a recommendation to Planning Board decide in favor of the technical details that need to be worked recommendation is made to the ZBA. he gave to the Planning Board the ZBA, and, should the recommendation there are some out on the site plan, if a Chairperson Grigorov said that she did not see how the Planning Board cannot make a recommendation, that is their job. Mr. Forman stated that he meant a positive or negative recommendation. Ms. Langhans commented that when the evening the pit area is still going Langhans said that the suggestion was animals to it, as there will be residue grate. Mr. Baldassarre responded th and put them someplace. the business is closed down in to be open in front. Mso made that the smell will bring of barbecued chicken on the at he would take the grates off Board Member Lesser stated that he would very much hate to see that area turned into a strip development; he would like to see what • the various committees have to propose that would suggest an alternative, adding that he would be very reluctant to approve anything which might impede another development plan for the area which could avoid a continuation of the City and of Route 13. Chairperson Grigorov offered that there has not been any discussion of that side of the road; it is not anything coming up very soon. Board Member Kenerson said that with the availability of sewer and water people are going to be attracted to the area, and in today's world that is "cars ". Board Member Langhans asked about the possibility of a "trial "; can this be arranged for a year or just weekends? Mr. Lesser responded that when one puts an investment like that in an area... Chairperson Grigorov said that that is up to Mr. Baldassarre, but wondered if the Planning Board could do it. Ms. Langhans mentioned the investment in that the building itself is there; she thought the biggest investment would be the fans. Mr. Lesser said there is always a big investment in starting up a business, advertising, training people, etc. Attorney Salk mentioned the sprinkler system in that, given the previous discussions with the Town and the Health Department, there are quite a lot of requirements for what appears to be a small project. Attorney Barney stated that he understood the business would be open, initially, just weekends and holidays. Mr. Baldassarre said that he would be happy with that. Attorney Barney said that if the Planning Board chose to grant the approval it could be conditioned so • that the business would be limited to weekends and holidays; that gives a "trial" in terms of a part of the week. Attorney Salk is • • EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ PLANNING BOARD (14) April 7, 1992 wondered if Mr. Baldassarre would have to come back before the Board if he wanted to expand the hours. Attorney Barney replied, yes. Mr. Kenerson wondered if Mr. Baldassarre had contacted the Health Department. Mr. Baldassarre answered, yes. Chairperson Grigorov noted positive memo dated April 3, Department of Planning regarding as Exhibit #3.] that the Planning Board received,a 1992, from the Tompkins County the proposal. [Memo attached hereto Mr. Lesser commented that he thought if this proposal is approved, what the Planning Board is approving is a full restaurant; if it is weekends how can one say no to weeks if they are serving cole slaw, sodas one cannot start limiting customers, menu, and things like that -- how long is it going to be before the front is filled in -- it is going to be a restaurant. Attorney Barney stated that one cannot go in fear of what is going to happen in the future because anything that alters the site plan or alters the conditions that are imposed, as long as they are reasonable conditions, would require coming back to the Board for Special Approval, Board Member Finch commented that he would be surprised if they could sell that many chickens, but Mr. Baldassarre is betting there is a market and, whether people would prefer a Wegman chicken to a Minnie's or not there is no way to tell that need from what he has seen so far. Mr. Finch said that there is nothing that says there is not a need, except his bet. Mr. Finch, referring to "The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town ", stated that he was concerned about what may happen in that area, but the Board has not given the applicant any guidance that says he is not in accordance with the Comprehensive Plans he is in accordance with the Zoning law that exists and he is certainly not that much different from some of the other businesses that are in that area. Mr. Finch said he did not see how the Board can hold Mr. Baldassarre to a Comprehensive Plan that may delay some of the things the Board is concerned about in the whole area, and the applicant is meeting the Zoning Ordinance. Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that the proposal is an allowed use in a Business "C" Zone with a Special Approval. Mr. Finch stated that he understood, from what Attorney Barney said, although there is not.a Comprehensive Plan, basically, what Mr. Baldassarre has to go on is what is in place, and that is the zoning law.. Attorney Barney commented -- and what we have done in other areas, just by Planning Board decisions, Zoning Board of Appeals decisions, and Town Board rezonings. Mr. Finch said that the only argument he can see is with number two, "The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected ", in terms of the existing and probable future character. Mr. Finch stated that he was not sure about the probable future$ when one says probable then says future that gives him two things that he does not know about. Mr. Finch said that he was not trying to debate whether it is right or wrong at this point; he was just trying to look at the criteria. Mr. Lesser stated that his interpretation of the word "need" is somewhat different from Mr. Finch's. Mr. Lesser EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (15) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • said that as he understands it, Mr. Finch is saying, essentially, market test; if it's economic, if it's financially viable, there is a need for it, adding, if that is the case there is no point in putting it in a law; the best thing to do is to just let business go ahead -- if it goes, fine - if it doesn't, fine. Mr. Lesser said that he thinks the business is really in an inappropriate place to put it, whether it is, or is not, financially viable. Mr. Lesser stated that in terms of probable future character, to a large extent, that is in the Board's hands. Chairperson Grigorov commented that only within the zoning can the Board control things. Ms. Langhans commented that if strip development is being put every 200 -500 feet it is being shaped in a way that is probably not the way the Board wants it shaped. Chairperson Grigorov stated that as far as she knew the Board has not disallowed anything because it was a strip development. It was noted that this project, last time around, was site plan approval. Mr. Lesser mentioned Cannon Pools which is a little bit farther north on Elmira Road. Mr. Lesser said that the Board was very careful about the distance off the road, visibility from the road, and the character of the building, adding that traffic was not a factor there. Mr. Lesser said that it could have been proposed for an automobile dealership, which would have a very different impact; the Board would have looked at it quite differently from the business that is presently there. Mr. Finch stated that he is still puzzled over the existing character of the neighborhood. • Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any way of having a buffer toward the residential zone. Ms. Langhans, directing her comment to Mr. Forman, asked what the distance was between Minnie's BQ and the R -30 zone. Sybil Phillips of 321 Elmira Road answered, 310 feet. Attorney Barney stated that the buffer zone requirement is a buffer zone between a commercial zone and a residential zone, adding that he thought Mr. Putnam's house at 711 Elmira Road, regretfully or otherwise, is within the commercial zone, so it is not a buffer zone between a commercial establishment and a residential establishment; it is between zones. A voice from the audience wondered, why then when Finger Lakes Tractor owned the land on the other side of the road, and it was proposed to put in an implement building, the Board told him that he had to put in a buffer between that building and his house -- and he owned the house. Chairperson Grigorov responded that that was before her time. The voice said that it was about four years ago. Attorney Barney offered that it may have been the zoning Board•of Appeals. Mr. Forman stated that that is not a viable issue here, even if the Board wanted to do it, one can't make this thing work with it, there is no room to put a buffer there even if the Board thinks it is a good idea. Attorney Barney stated that the law on a buffer is a zone to zone requirement, not building to building requirement. Ms. Langhans, commenting on the Traffic Study, stated that they • talked about cars entering and exiting the same side, adding that she thought that would be a real headache. Attorney Salk stated that he had asked the traffic engineer to look at the worst case scenario, EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ (16) April 7, 1992 PLANNING BOARD • and that is one of the things Mr. Forman wants to address -- what the signage is going to be and what the traffic flow is going to be on site. Mr. Lesser stated that from his interpretation, and from his reading, he cannot answer the three points positively. Mr. Lesser said he did not feel there is particularly a need. Ms. Langhans commented that it is not as though there isn't another eating place around. Mr. Lesser agreed. Chairperson Grigorov said that to her "need" means something urgent. Ms. Langhans added that it is a convenience. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion. MOTION by Mr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker. RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed "Minnie's BQ", consisting of the conversion of an existing structure to a restaurant -type operation with parking and landscaping improvements on a site located on the southeast side of Elmira Road (NYS Route 13) approximately 250 feet south of its intersection with Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 35 -1 -29, Business District "C ", the Town of Ithaca Planning Board determine and hereby does determine that: is 1. There is not a need for the proposed use in the proposed location; 2. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will be adversely affected; 3. The proposed change is not in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Planning Board find and hereby does find. 1. That there are numerous other eating facilities within the immediate vicinity of the proposed restaurant -type operation and, therefore, there is no compelling need for an additional eating facility; 2. That the character of the neighborhood consists of a number of residences in the area that would be adversely affected by the odors, possibly the grease, and the traffic that would be generated by adding another quasi - commercial establishment in the vicinity; 3. That the following factors (a) the recent decisions that have been made by the Planning Board with respect to fast -food • restaurants; (b) the planning that has occurred with respect to the Zoning Ordinance and particularly the Zoning Ordinance amendment requiring that a store of this nature obtain a positive EXCERPT /MINNIE'S BQ PLANNING BOARD (17) April 7, 1992 recommendation before the Zoning Board of Appeals considers an application for special approval, and (c) the planning process which suggests that these kinds of uses need to be looked at more closely prior to the granting of such special approval, all indicate that the proposal to establish such a fast -food restaurant is not consistent with the comprehensive plan of the Town of Ithaca. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Finch. Nay - Grigorov. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Minnie's BQ duly closed. • .7 • To: Chairman, Planning Board Town of Ithaca We, the undersigned, object to the approval of Minnie's Bar - B-Q to be located in the 700 block of the Elmira Road 'Route 13). Our reasons for this objection areas. follows: 1. Traffic hazard a. Rush hour traffic is now bumper to bumper (C 50 mph). b. Cars turning in or create additional hazards. coming out will slaw traffic a:.cI� C. Cars crossing traffic will have a major impact on safety and traffic flow. d. Open -pit emitting smoke could inhibit visibility de- pending upon wind direction. 2. Odors and smoke could be obnoxious and toxic and make outdoor use of �o.ur properties untenable. • 3. Grease released into the air will damage nearby buildings and can create major problems:., for those persons with respir- atory ailments. 0 4. Odors will draw both domestic and wild animals to the area. 5. Open -pit may create ash deposits throughout the neighborhood. 6. No water., sewer or electricity. Drainage- ground contamination of wetlands, inlet and lake. Lev �J • • April 7, 1992 Chairman, Planning Board Town of Ithaca A good zoning plan requires a buffer zone between high impact businesses, such as Minnie's BQ, and residential areas. In addition, Town Boards should make their decisions based on the good of the majority, not the good of one party. We realize that Minnie's BQ does not need a zoning variance and will not be seeking one, but that does not change the situation. As concerned landowners and renters, we have come before you tonight to sub- mit our list of objections regarding the proposed Minnie's BQ. We wish to note that the attached petition has been signed by every residential household in the surrounding area. By approving the establishment of Minnie's BQ in our neighborhood, the Town would be infringing on the rights of the area residents to enjoy full use of their properties as they were zoned when they purchased them. • To: Chairman, Planning Board Town of Ithaca We, the undersigned, object to the approval of Minnie's Bar - B-Q to be located in the 700 block of the Elmira Road 'Route 13). Our reasons for this objection areas follows: 1. Traffic hazard a. Rush hour traffic is now bumper to bumper (@ 50 mph). b. Cars turning in or :.coming out will sibw- traffic and create additional hazards, C, Cars crossing traffic will have a major impact on safety and traffic flow. d. Open -pit emitting smoke could inhibit visibility de- pending upon wind direction. 2. Odors and smoke could be obnoxious and toxic and make outdoor use of our properties untenable. 3. Grease released into the air will damage nearby buildings and can create major probleins•i for those persons with respir- atory ailments. 4. Odors will draw both domestic and wild animals to the area. 5. Open -pit may create ash deposits throughout the neighborhood. 6. No water, sewer or electricity. Drainage- ground contamination of wetlands, inlet and lake. y `C 1 , l0 u /w Ida_ ELvv%,:n+ PZ4 /T 4 J C ^}(..C.;�.�L•L ILL 4. i r ZX/Y, /,z`/ r�j T is • • ELLIOT RUBINSTEIN, M.D. Adult and Pediatric Allergy Cortland Ithaca Elmira 109 West Road 840 Honshow Rood 216 W. Gray Street 607 - 753.9604 607 - 257 -6563 607- 733 -5086 March 6. 1992 RE: Sybil Phillips DOB: April 30, 1941 To Whom It May Concern: The above named patient is being seen in this office for allergic problems. Due to the nature of her problems, I feel that it is best if she avoids irritants. including smoke. If you have any further questions. please do not hesitate to contact nee . ER: isf Sincerely your Elliot Rubinstein, M.D. Tompkins Country r , • DEPARTMENT ;OF PL "ANNING : � t Biggs Building A, 301sHarris BI; Dates Drive lihaca, New York,148,50 James W. Hanson, Jr.`= Telephone Commissioner of Planning g (607) 2745360 l TO: Richard Eiken, Planner I Town of Ithaca '• FROM: James W. Hanson Jr DATE: April 3, 1992 RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Mi.nnie's BQ Tax Map No. 6- 35 -1 -29. • This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins Cc Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. 4M fm Recycled paper