Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-11-07• • • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD .NOVEMBER 7, 1995 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date�� Clerk The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Vice - Chairperson Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Fred Wilcox, James Ainslie, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Kirsten Carroll, Virginia Bryant, Gretchen Herrmann, Helen Wyvill, Mark Macera, Everett Robinson, Sarah Sadler, Kendall Callahan, Phyllis Baker, Barbara Blanchard, Jagat Sharma, Om Gupta, Noel Desch, Lynn Gault, Kevin Eisenberg, Acting Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:38 p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 23, 1995, and October 27, 1995, together with the Secretary' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 27, 1995, Acting Chairperson Cornell read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office o Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Acting Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION PER ARTICLE XI SECTION 51A OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED SITING OF AN 8' DIAMETER GROUND -LEVEL SATELLITE DISH RECEIVER AND A RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER CONSISTING OF A 60' +/- WOODEN POLE AND A 36" TRANSMISSION ANTENNA, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF BOSTWICK ROAD AT 383 BOSTWICK ROAD, AG- AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, RICHARD D. BAKER, OWNER; TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH; APPLICANT, EVERETT A. ROBINSON, AGENT. Acting Chairperson Cornell declared the Public Hearing on the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above. ■ TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD .NOVEMBER 7, 1995 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date�� Clerk The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Vice - Chairperson Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Fred Wilcox, James Ainslie, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Kirsten Carroll, Virginia Bryant, Gretchen Herrmann, Helen Wyvill, Mark Macera, Everett Robinson, Sarah Sadler, Kendall Callahan, Phyllis Baker, Barbara Blanchard, Jagat Sharma, Om Gupta, Noel Desch, Lynn Gault, Kevin Eisenberg, Acting Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:38 p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 23, 1995, and October 27, 1995, together with the Secretary' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 27, 1995, Acting Chairperson Cornell read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office o Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Acting Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION PER ARTICLE XI SECTION 51A OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED SITING OF AN 8' DIAMETER GROUND -LEVEL SATELLITE DISH RECEIVER AND A RADIO TRANSMISSION TOWER CONSISTING OF A 60' +/- WOODEN POLE AND A 36" TRANSMISSION ANTENNA, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF BOSTWICK ROAD AT 383 BOSTWICK ROAD, AG- AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, RICHARD D. BAKER, OWNER; TABERNACLE BAPTIST CHURCH; APPLICANT, EVERETT A. ROBINSON, AGENT. Acting Chairperson Cornell declared the Public Hearing on the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above. • Planning Board Minutes 2 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 Everette Robinson of 3 Foothill Road, Freeville, New York addressed the Board and stated that he is the agent for the Tabernacle Baptist Church, who is the applicant. Mr. Robinson summarized the project by stating that the church would like to install a satellite receiving dish which would receive a broadcast signal from a satellite and then rebroadcast it over an FM antenna on a frequency to be assigned by the FCC and our original proposal was to install that on a 60 -foot standard utility pole, actually 60' above the ground. We believe this would be a desirable addition to the Ithaca area because it would provide a unique Christian radio signal and would include broadcasting music and programming consistent with enhancing family values and community pride. We also believe this would not interfere with any electrical equipment in the area, but should it interfere, we would stand ready to clear that difficulty with any owner in the area or anyone interfered with at all. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked how would this would be done, Mr. Robinson stated that it would depend on the nature of the interference but the most likely way would be to install a filter on the electronic device that we interfere with. That is a Federal Communications Commission requirement and it would be done at no cost to the owner of the equipment. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she did not know what such a filter is, outside the could house you describe it, is or on the appliance it something that has to go itself. Mr. Robinson stated that he could not describe it in technical terms, more generically. It would be attached to the equipment but we don't believe it would interfere with anyone. It would be a standard FM broadcast signal of low wattage to be assigned by the FCC, for example 88.1, that type of thing, so it would be a standard and should not interfere with anything with cellular phones or television reception which are all done on different frequencies. Mr. Robinson stated, should it interfere, the church would clear it. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Robinson if he had any other information that would help educate people about your project. Mr. Robinson responded, no, not in the way of handouts, but that he was prepared to respond to any questions that anyone may have. Mr. Robinson stated that the church would be prepared to compromise from our original proposal in order to meet any concerns • that people would have. Mr. Robinson stated that it was the churches intention to be a good neighbor. • Planning Board Minutes 3 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak. Gretchen Herrmann of 433 Bostwick Road addressed the Board and stated that the only concern she really had was the reception which she understood was controlled by the FCC regulations. Ms. Herrmann stated that she was also concerned that if the equipment is not being used, if for some reason it is no longer being used for broadcasting, that it would be removed. Ms. Herrmann stated that she would also want to thank George Frantz for being very sensitive about the visual concerns. I think I am the only one directly impacted with the visual and I think the adjustment that everybody's arrived at seems probably like the best of all worlds for most people involved. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if Ms. Herrmann had any direct comments for Mr. Robinson. Ms. Herrmann stated that she understood that with this written proposal that the pole would be a 50 -foot tower and that should it be necessary for reception, another 10 feet might be put on. Ms. Herrmann stated that it was not listed in the drafted resolution • that 10 feet is the limit for additions. Ms. Herrmann asked if the maximum height it could be adjusted to read no more than 60 feet. Ms. Herrmann stated that she wanted it recorded with that limitation. Ms. Herrmann stated that she felt it would be good if it were explicit in the approval resolution. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked Assistant Town Planner George Frantz to present any additional information to the Board regarding this project. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated, to summarize, that he had met with Richard Baker and Everett Robinson, and that Mr. Baker explained to him that the idea of shifting the pole 50' southward would really not work. His is an active farm and a pole in that location, especially with over -head wires connecting to the shed, the electrical power source is located, could cause trouble for him. Mr. Baker pointed that from his stand point the location which is shown on the map here (Hereto attached as Exhibit 2) is the best location. Mr. Frantz stated that the pole would be out of the way of his equipment, would be immediately adjacent to the shed, and close to the power supply. There's a good location for the satellite dish in this area here, between the silo and the shed, from the public perspective, this is also one of the better locations on the site, given the fact that the silo and this tree and this shed pretty well screen the pole, or would screen the pole • from the Bostwick Road. Mr. Frantz stated that the applicants have gone from the original idea of having the pole someplace within this 40' diameter circle to really a specific location within the 9 Planning Board Minutes 4 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 circle. Mr. Frantz stated that last week I went out and took some more photographs. Mr. Frantz then gave a brief description of the photos as shown to the Planning Board. What I did was I took a series of photos, most of them of course along the shoulder of the road looking eastward across what is the major viewshed in the area. I also took one from the east looking up the road, just to get an indication of what the pole would look like when viewed from the east. This photo here was taken from this point right opposite the Wyvill driveway, and then the new Baker residence is right here. It shows the pole standing about five to ten feet above the top of the tree that's shown on your large site map, and the silo's actually hidden behind the trees. From this particular perspective, the pole is pretty well screened from Bostwick Road. Then I went east about 500 feet. Here from about 1000 feet the pole was mostly blocked by the silo. It doesn't extend above the silo. From about 700 away feet, the pole is again mostly blocked by the silo. This photo is from about 550 feet from the road and then this photo is looking up the road towards the farm. (NOTE: Photos are available in the Planning Department Development Review File) • Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked if Mr. Frantz had drawn the pole into those photographs. Mr. Frantz responded, yes. Mr. Frantz stated that there are actually two sheds on the site. The pole is going to be located on the far side of the shed, as shown in the photos. Ms, Herrmann stated that she thought that the way the view and the limitations have been dealt with will mitigate of her concerns. Acting Chairperson Cornell noted that this was a public hearing and asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak. Helen Wyvill of 415 Bostwick Road, addressed the Board and stated that her driveway was shown in one of the photos shown by Mr. Frantz, Ms. Wyvill stated that when she initially got word from the Town of this project, she had some concerns about safety and about flashing red lights and about view and about impact on our television and radio reception but Mr. Baker has been very cooperative in talking with the neighbors, and dealing with our concerns. Ms. Wyvill stated that she and her family are not opposed to the project. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any further • questions of comments from the public. Ms. Herrmann stated that the only thing she is concerned with 0 Planning Board Minutes 5 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 is that if this is not being used can it be stipulated that it will be taken down. Town Attorney John Barney stated that the Board could stipulate that if not used for six months, to put that a it be removed. There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak on this matter, Acting Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there was something she wanted to have clarified. Ms. Hoffmann asked where the dish itself would be located, on the ground or on top of the pole. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded that it would be located on the ground. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be any lights on the pole to indicate to aircraft that it was there. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, no, those were not proposed. Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if the satellite receiving dish would be essentially hidden. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded that it would be, it was going to be located on the opposite side of the silo from the road. Board Member Wilcox asked how high the satellite dish would be, total. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded that it was actually going to be your typical satellite receiving dish. Board Member James Ainslie asked if it was necessary for a homeowner to get permission just to put up a satellite dish. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it does need a Building Permit. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he appreciated the photo analysis because it is very helpful. Mr. Bell stated that the picture from downhill looking West, leads to the question of whether we could reduce the impact visually a little bit more by • moving the tower closer to the silo. Mr. Bell stated that it looks like from the uphill angles, the silo blocks the tower and protects these views pretty well, but from the downhill if it were Planning Board Minutes 6 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 moved a little closer to the tower it would tend to blend in and be seen as the same object instead of two separate objects. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the problem with that, if you start moving the pole away from the shed and it starts interfering with the farm operations. Board Member Bell stated that the Board would basically be switching places between the tower and the satellite dish. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the satellite dish is to be located near the shed at the driveway and will be pointed to the southwest. The silo is going to serve as a wind - breaker to protect the dish antenna from the northwest winds in the wintertime. I've got a number of those photos looking from the east and my sense is wherever you put the pole, it's going to project above the horizon and so even the silo doesn't help much in terms of mitigating visual impact. If you put the pole so the silo is behind it from this point on Bostwick it would only help for a few seconds at the most. For most of the part if you drive up the hill, the silo is actually below the horizon. It's only when a car is pretty close to the house that the silo breaks the skyline. At that point you have to have the pole probably way over here. I don't know but I think you're opening it up to more exposure from the west, moving it from behind the tree and silo. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he did not think anything would be gained. Mr. Frantz stated that he did not think you could get the tower in a position where it would actually be backed up by the silo. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wanted to be sure if the maps shows the fifty -foot height or the fifty -foot height plus the ten -foot extension. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the photos show the fifty -foot height. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the follow -up question to that then, is, would the top of the pole come up above the hill on the opposite side if it were taken at sixty feet. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded that it would be very close, but that he could not say, for sure whether it would actually project above the crest of South Hill or not. Board Member Ainslie stated that his understanding was that the pole would be only eight inches in diameter, and asked if that was correct. • Planning Board Minutes 7 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the pole would be eight to twelve inches in diameter. Board Member Ainslie stated that the silo is probably either a twelve or a fourteen foot silo. You're talking a rather small pole in relation to the silo. So it's only a foot against twelve feet, so it really is not much. Assistant Town Planner Frantz passed a photograph around to the Board Members, and stated that it is a photograph of one of the seventy- foot -tall high tension lines that runs south along Route 13 and Five Mile Drive in that area along the railroad tracks, for comparison purposes. It's seventy feet tall approximately, and the base is a little over two feet in diameter and the top is, I would say, more than a foot in diameter. This was viewed from Five Mile Drive and it's about 575 feet away. Mr. Frantz stated that the proposal is a narrower pole and, of course, a shorter one. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board's job at this meeting is to send a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, requesting if we agree that there should be a special permission given to this radio tower. Ms. Cornell stated that she was sure that the Board Members have all read Article 11, Section 51A, of the Town of Ithaca's Zoning Ordinance, which describes the regulations for a radio tower. Ms. Cornell then asked if everyone had read the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) comments on this regarding this project. Ms. Cornell stated, basically the ERC brings to the table the fact that this is in contrast to the existing Zoning Ordinance, Ms. Cornell stated that the Board's job tonight is to come up with a recommendation for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated, referring to a letter dated October 19, 1995, from the County Planning Department which addresses the general municipal law referral. Mr. Kanter stated that the only comment of the County Planning Department is that the Town of Ithaca may want to consider the aesthetic impact of the proposed radio tower particularly since several residents in the project area have raised concerns. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the comparison photo illustrates understands to her that that the there would not Town Ordinance be is a huge impact, but she more concerned with basically if the tower falls over. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board's job is to decide whether this tower warrants special consideration. ® Board Member Wilcox stated that the Board has not yet publicly addressed the zoning issue and that's been stated in here that the 40 Planning Board Minutes 8 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 0 • tower shall be on its own parcel of land. This particular piece of land is 106 acres, and I personally don't see the need for locating this tower on its own separate parcel. There seems to be plenty of land and they don't have the concerns that the town may have had many years ago when the current ordinance was written. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that this is also a different type of tower than what the ordinance was written for. There appearing to be no further discussion, Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to make a'motion. MOTION BY Fred Wilcox, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Permission per Article XI, Section 51a of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow the proposed siting of an 8 ft. diameter ground -level satellite dish receiver and a radio transmission tower consisting of a 60 ft. +/- wooden pole and 36 inch transmission antenna, proposed to be located approximately 400 ft. South of Bostwick Road at 383 Bostwick Road, AG- Agricultural District. Richard D. Baker, Owner; Tabernacle Baptist Church, Applicant; Everett A. Robinson, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 7, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a site map entitled "Proposed Location - Satellite Dish Antenna and Radio Transmission Tower, 383 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca, New York" dated October 3, 1995, a map entitled "Visual Impact Assessment -Site Map" prepared by the Planning Department and dated 11/7/95, and amended to show the location of the satellite dish antenna, and other application materials, and 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is lead agency in environmental review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant; ® Planning Board Minutes 9 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 • b, the proposed site is an appropriate one, given the size and height of the proposed antenna and its appurtenances and the size and character of the property on which it is proposed to be located; cl the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood, the other properties in the neighborhood and the enjoyment by the inhabitants of their properties, and the value of such properties and the use and enjoyment of such properties, and the health, welfare and safety of the occupants of such properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; d, the specific proposed change in land use as a the proposed project is in accordance result of with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, subject to the following conditions: a, that the proposed location of the transmission tower be as shown on the map entitled "Visual Impact Assessment - Site Map" prepared by the Planning Department, and dated November 7, 1995, and amended to show the location of the satellite dish antenna; b, that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance from the requirements of Article XI, Section 51a (5)(2)(g) regarding the size and character of the site for the proposed transmission tower; co that the church, pursuant to Federal Communications Commission regulations, correct, at its expense, any problems surrounding homeowners may have as a result of electromagnetic interference from the proposed antenna d, that the height of the wooden pole not exceed fifty feet from the existing grade, and the overall height not exceed sixty feet with any addition above fifty feet to be a pole with a diameter no greater than three inches. e. that Special Approval terminate at such time as the pole ceases to be used as a transmission tower for a period in excess of three months in which event the pole is to be removed. 0 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. • Planning Board Minutes 10 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Announcement also lists the satellite dish for special approval because it is an eight foot dish. Acting Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of the radio transmission tower to be duly closed. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 40 -3 -9, +/- 3.68 ACRES TOTAL AREA, INTO 4 LOTS, +/- 0.43, +/- 0.78, +/- 1.23, AND +/- 1.24 ACRES RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 930 DANBY ROAD, I- INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. ICS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, OWNER; JAGAT P. SHARMA. AGENT, Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the above -noted matter is a Continuation of Consideration of Preliminary Approval for the South Hill Complex subdivision. • Jagat Sharma addressed the Board and stated that he is the agent and architect for ICS Developers on this project. Mr. Sharma stated that he was requesting preliminary approval of the subdivision. Mr. Sharma stated that he was before the Board the last time and there was some concern about two or three different versions of the resolution, some graphics, and presentation on our part. Mr. Sharma stated that he felt that he was more prepared this time than he was the last time. In terms of graphics, we have submitted four drawings to the Board, one of them is a color drawing which indicates the four different lots by color. The drawing immediately to the right of that is a revised site plan which indicates the eight car parking spaces we have included with Lot #2 construction. There are two more drawings that we have submitted. One is a land /line drawing from the upper part of Danby Road, just north of the traffic light looking at the side. We based that rendering on actual photographs we took of the site, and indicated the Lot #2 building, Lot #3 building, the Lot #1 building in the background and the Lot #4 building in the background. On the cross - section, we have indicated the profile of Danby Road by a broken line which is the actual topographic profile of Danby Road. You can see that the height of the building of Lot #2 is basically - if you have an intersection - you are looking over the old roof line of the building in Lot #21 Mr. Sharma continued by stating that there was concern last ® time what the impact will be because you raised the height of the building on Lot #2 by 21. Our position is that we submit that two additional feet on that building on that side has practically no 0 Planning Board Minutes 11 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 impact on the view looking North from the intersection. The reason for the subdivision, I think we indicated before, is a practical reason for financing the project, and as a result of the subdivision, the parking between Lot #1 and Lot #2 has been widened to allow for a 30' wide free access to Lots #3 and #4. That made some changes to the site plan as it was. That's why we have a new site plan. Mr. Sharma stated that there is a lot of interest on Lot #2 and the prospective tenants have indicated they prefer the entrance from the south end. They prefer the entrance with the parking at the upper level in the south end, and that is why all the changes have been indicated on the site plan. Mr. Sharma stated that another reason for changing the site plan which I think if we are only talking about the subdivisions then I am going over to talk about some of the changes in the modified site plans. The addition of a basement in the building on Lot #2, which is needed because the owner would like to have some storage space as they are renting some storage space right now. They want to consolidate their operations. It fits within the site you can see from the rendering from the cross - section, it will really have no impact, it just comes naturally as a result of the topography of the project. That will be used for storage either for the tenant or for the owner. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if Planner Cornish if she had anything in the way of further explanation to the Board regarding this project. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated, in the Planning Board Members folders for tonight she had provided copies of the original of your site plans, and copies of the proposed changes to the site plans for quicker reference. Ms. Cornish stated that she did not require Mr. Sharma to submit all the required copies since it is a sketch plan at this stage for this site plan modification. Ms. Cornish stated that she thought it might be easier for the Board to see the subdivision if the actual lots were colored in, which was Starr's suggestion, after the last meeting and she thought it was a very good one. The suggestion was made because there was some confusion over the flag lots in the back, and it is now clearer how the subdivision lines are going to go for each of the parcels. Mr. Sharma stated that he had received the final site plan approval in February of this year. Mr. Sharma stated that the changes I would like to point out, which will occur as a result of the subdivision and our own study of the building on Lot #2. The parking between Lot #1 and Lot #2 has been widened because we need an access to Lot #3 and Lot #4; 30 feet wide, and also 30' plus the entrance to the parking bay. That has widened the distance between the two buildings and we were able to do it because it in fact was not that much so we had taken away some of the distance between the 0 Planning Board Minutes 12 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 curb and the building on both ends and widened the parking. Mr. Sharma stated that the other change that you see from the site plan is that what you have now is the inclusion of 8 parking spaces coming off this road and our site plan has indicated 15 potential additional parking spaces. Mr. Sharma stated that there was some concern expressed by the Board to retain the green space next to the roadway, so we are able to do that by adding just 8 parking spaces. There will be some parking on the old parking lot, and if you are only building Lot #2 you have to build this road, and the parking between the two buildings; if there is a need for more parking we can temporarily for this phase, provide other parking on Lot #3 or along the street. Mr. Sharma stated that the other thing he had explained earlier is that this building has a basement now, and the landscaping plan will be devised when it comes to the final plans. As you can see, the grading along the parking, there is almost 7 or 8 feet difference between the low point and the high point, and we are able to carve the parking within the hill so if you are looking at the side coming South or going North, it will be buried in the bank and you will not be able to see the entire impact of the parking next to the road. Mr. Sharma stated that one would see the green and one would see the upper meadow. M r Sharma continued and stated that additional trees will be planted • on top of the bank. We will be paying for all the landscaping that was shown in the original landscape plan. I have a letter here from T.G. Miller, they said in their compilations for the drainage that they have already included all the future potential parking and the parking that was to be built in the construction sequence has no impact on the drainage, and it was already included in the study. Mr. Sharma stated that changing from grass to parking will have no impact on the drainage. Planner Cornish stated that she did look up a couple of things that were a concern the last time, and one was, if there were any coverage requirements in the South Hill Industrial District. Ms. Cornish stated that there are not. Some people were concerned that they had perhaps exceeded the allowable coverage and since there is no requirement in an industrial district that really doesn't come into play. The parking for building #2, at the last meeting they were proposing to use the entire future parking, and now as Mr. Sharma pointed out, they are just proposing to use this lot, and in fact these eight spaces and these spaces (referring to driveway) will equal 20 which is what's required for the square footage of that building. So, it should be adequate and written in the deeds and covenants as a provision, that if it is not adequate they are allowed to use parking spaces on the other lot. Planner Cornish stated, one thing that the Planning staff did point out was, if you are going to add the basement, if the Board approves that, then there should be a provision in it that it be used for storage, and not be allowed to be used for anything else. . Planning Board Minutes 13 ADOPTED 2/6/96 Board Member Wilcox asked Attorney Barney or written the covenants, and asked if he was as presented. November 7, 1995 if he had reviewed satisfied with them Attorney Barney responded that he was satisfied with the covenants as presented to the Board tonight. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that she, personally, would like to see as much landscape screening from the road as possible. Ms. Cornell stated that she understood that, because of the elevation, there will be a lot of coverage already. Planner Cornish stated that she had visited the site and stood at the intersection of the entrance to Axiohm and Danby Road, and the drawings provided by Mr. Sharma shows basically what you see because you are looking in essence down on the building from that location. Ms. Cornish stated, if one were to walk to the front of it and stand on Danby Road as if you were looking straight at the building then of course it is in your view, it obstructs the view from that angle. Ms. Cornish stated, interestingly enough, the horizon of West Hill is at eye level for me at that point and the trees grow above the building in the background if you were to • stand directly in front of it on Danby Road, but that is basically what you would see, you are that much higher at the entrance to Axiohm. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Ms. Cornish's comment is quite interesting because it doesn't look like it from the cross section drawing as if it would appear that way when you're standing there. Planner Cornish stated that it was interesting and that she found it helpful to actually stand in the position where the roof line would be at that point. There being no further discussion, Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were prepare to offer a motion. motion. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -3 -9, +/- 316 acres total area, into 4 lots consisting of Lot 1, 0.78 acres, Lot 2, 0.43 acres, Lot 3, 1.23 acres and Lot 4, 1.24 acres, Industrial • District, ICS Development Partners, Inc., Owner; Jagat P. Sharma, Applicant. Final Site Plan Approval for the construction of an office /retail complex was granted on February 7, 1995 by the Town • Planning Board Minutes 14 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 • El of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed South Hill Complex, which was originally proposed to be built on the single +/- 3.6 acre parcel. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in an environmental review, did, on October 17, 1995, review and accept as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, and made a negative determination of the environmental significance with regard to Preliminary Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, at its regular meeting on November 7, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Preliminary Subdivision Plat entitled "South Hill Complex Subdivision Preliminary Plat ", dated September 12, 1995, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Plat Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -3 -9, 930 Danby Road, into 4 lots as shown on the above referenced plat entitled "South Hill Complex Subdivision Preliminary Plat ", dated September 12, 1995, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., subject to the following conditions: • Planning Board Minutes 15 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 a. Concurrently with the filing of the final subdivision map, and prior to the issuance of any building permit there shall be filed with the Tompkins County Clerk a declaration of easements and restrictions in a form approved by this Board and by the Town Planner and Town Attorney, such declaration to provide for cross easements for access, utilities, handling of common area expenses, and related matters, and to be in substantially the form submitted to an approved at this meeting, as per the attached draft dated October 30, 1995. The declaration of covenants and easements required pursuant to these conditions shall, among other matters, require: (i) Easements for entrances, exits, and driveways for: (A) Ingress and egress through the Axiohm property. (B) The entrance from Route 96B through Lots #3 and #4 (15 feet each running east and west between Lots #1 and #2). (C) The use of the driveway on Lot #4, to access the lower level parking for the building on Lot #1. S(D) The driveway running north and south on Lot #3 for the owners of Lots #1, #2, and #4 to access the I ngress and egress on the Axiohm property. (ii) Easements for sewage and sanitation lines for: (A) Lot #1 to access the sewer line running through Lot #4. (B) Lot #2 to access the sewer line through Lot #3 and connect to the line on Lot #4. (C) Lot #3 to connect to the sewer line on Lot #4. Easements for utility lines including, but not limited to, water, gas, electric and phone, to provide access to any of the other lots. (iv) Easements for storm water drainage for each lot. Storm water drainage shall be in accordance with the approved site plan entitled "South Hill Complex" dated November 8, 1994, which approved the storm water drainage based on one lot. Any deviation from this plan shall be only upon approval by the Town Engineer. • • Planning Board Minutes 16 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 n U C (v) The obligation of the for the maintenance of driveways, lines, landscaping, and all other exception of the individual parking to any of the four lots, In the even Inc. no longer holds title to any of an entity or lot owner designated maintenance of these shared services ICS Development Partners, Inc. drainage structures, utility of the to the shared services, with the lots, as long as it has title a certificate, the ICS Development Partners, or needed to service such building shall be substantially the four lots, there shall be to be responsible for the and facilities. b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any buildings on any 96B of the to the lots other than Lot 1, the entrance proposed development, the parking road from NYS Route areas between Lot 1 and Lot satisfaction Lot 2, and the 24' wide entrance and exit 1 rear parking area, shall be substantially of the Town Engineer. road from Axiohm to completed to the C. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, phasing of all utilities and site work, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewers, water lines, storm sewers, retention devices, electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines, grading and drainage control (hereafter collectively referred to as "utilities" or "utility work ") shall be approved by the Town Engineer. d. Landscaping, shall be installed in accordance with the approved site plan but may be phased on each lot as each building is constructed in a manner approved by the Town Planner. e. Prior to related to opinion of constructed the issuance of any building permit, all utility work any previous phase or buildings and needed, in the the Town Engineer, to service such previously buildings or phase, shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. certificate of occupancy for any f. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any building, and in addition to any other requirements related to the I ssuance of such a certificate, all utility work related to such building or needed to service such building shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. g. No individual lot in this subdivision shall be sold separately except that each lot may be mortgaged separately and a transfer of any of the lots resulting from a bonafide default in an obligation to a bonafide mortgagee would be permitted. Once all of the four lots are fully developed in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Town Planner, this limitation shall terminate. Planning Board Minutes 17 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 h. That approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals be granted, if necessary, for any required variances, prior to Final Subdivision Approval. i. If construction on Lot 2 occurs prior to construction on Lots 3 and 4, there shall be provided parking to meet the parking requirements of the Ordinance for Lot 2 on Lot 3,4, or Lot 1 (in the areas already approved for parking on such lots) rather than in the future reserved parking area on Lot 21 j. Any modification to the previously approved site plan dated November 8, 1994, falling within the thresholds of Section 46 (b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, shall require the submission of a revised site plan for the Planning Board's approval. The applicant has indicated during this subdivision approval process that site plan modifications relating to parking, landscaping, building location and height will be necessary. Approval for such site plan modifications shall be obtained prior to, or simultaneous with, final subdivision approval. k. The basement of the building on Lot #2 shall be used only for storage. There being no further discussion, Acting Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Wilcox, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Acting Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the South Hill Complex duly closed. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 3, 1995. Motion by Herbert Finch, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the October 3, 1995, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting be, and hereby are, approved as written. There being no further discussion, Acting Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Wilcox, Kenerson, Bell Nay - None. 0 The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. s • Planning Board Minutes OTHER BUSINESS Acting Chairperson business is the FEIS for 18 ADOPTED 2/6/96 November 7, 1995 Cornell stated that the first item of Ithacare. Director of Planning, Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that at the last meeting, which I was not able to attend, and I apologize, but I had prepared a memo dated October 13, 1995, this was in conjunction with my discussions with Ithacare on preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and we have provided more with that memo at the last meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that wanted to see what we could do tonight was to get any kind of feedback from the Board regarding that memo, because that memo really is the basis of our putting together the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Mr. Kanter stated that the memo outlines what we, up to now, have seen as the substantive comments that were received on the draft EIS. Mr. Kanter stated that he had met with representatives of Ithacare on October 16th, and went over the items that are listed in this memo and have proceeded pretty much to complete responses to these items. Mr. Kanter stated that he would be meeting, again tomorrow, with Ithacare representatives to see where we are with all the responses and start assembling it into one package so that we can get it to the Board hopefully in time for our next Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 1995, Mr. Kanter stated what he wanted to try to do tonight was give the Board members an opportunity to provide any feedback on these items that are listed in the memo, and to see what we are putting together into the FEIS, if it is in line with your thinking, or if you have any other suggestions different from what was in this outline, or in addition to it, or any other comments you want to make at this point, it would be helpful to hear that tonight. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if anyo: Ms. Cornell stated that number one on the configuration, how to handle the alternative Ms. Cornell stated, for "B -1" alternative, respond to that, you said that the town staff DEIS adequately demonstrates in the "B -1" that analysis would not be required. ae had any questions. alternative building letter "A" and "B ", and the DEIS as you will respond and the more detailed visual Mr. Kanter responded, yes, the "B -1" is the alternative located 700 feet plus or minus downhill, west. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that Mr. Kanter was saying that no further analysis is needed. Mr. Kanter stated that is basically what the response would be • Planning Board Minutes 19 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 unless we hear something different basically where we stand at this submitted from the public, questionii purposes of discussing this tonight, think is different from what you see least talk about it tonight, f rom point. ig that if the here, the Board, but that's There were comments but this is one of the re is something that you we should definitely at Board Member Hoffmann stated, if she remembered right, that was the alternative where the building was brought very far West and it ended up situated across two of the drainage ways from the pond and that was a major problem as well as on some steep slopes. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that then it says the same is true for 11B2" and 11B4" and 11B511, and asked Mr. Kanter what that meant. Town Planner Kanter stated that those were the other alternatives that did not include any photo analysis, one of them was further to the south, one of them was a highrise, one of them was an inverted building. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that you're not including •11B3" in that. Town Planner Kanter responded, that was correct because 11B3" was analyzed and what's referred to in part "A" of number 1 is what actually is now several versions of the modified 11B3" which are being analyzed by Ithacare. We have Ithacare representatives with us tonight and we're going to be going over what they have come up with tomorrow if that's going to help you want to mention anything about that now in terms of just the status of how that analysis is going. Mr. Kanter stated that he had talked to Mark Macera a little bit over the past couple of weeks on that analysis, but tomorrow we'll be going over it at length, so we don't have it yet, but if you have any comments you want to make at this point. Mark Macera addressed the Board and stated that he had only stated that it was the middle of last month when we presented what was essentially a status report on our evaluation of the Hoffmann version to attempt to look at the fact that perhaps it would work. It was in progress. What we'll present and discuss tomorrow establishes that the next generation of that, we need some guidelines, some direction with regards to is it in fact accomplishing what we're trying to accomplish. Town Planer Kanter stated that he pictures that analysis being incorporated into the FEIS as an appendix and then we'll have ® references within the text. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that she felt strongly that Planning Board Minutes 20 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 it should be incorporated, and asked how other people felt about it. Board Member Finch stated that he thought, as he read over the whole thing, that it was going in the direction we talked about. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if the Board was happy with the wildlife /habitat answer. Board Member Finch responded that he felt that it was more than satisfactory. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that when she read this over, her answer was that in scientific processes, Ithacare presented certain pieces of information and you come up with a hypothesis and the standard in biological science is if you don't have information about a certain place but you have comparable information about a similar area then you can make the same hypothesis using that information. Ms. Cornell stated, I'm satisfied. Number 3: Sewer Overflow and Storm water run -off. Town Planner Kanter stated that Town staff would provide some ® update on City /Town work in terms of getting that problem solved further. Attorney Barney stated, in terms of drainage, that it would be wise to add here that the Town Engineer in reviewing drainage plans operates on the assumption that there will be no increase in the rate of storm water runoff . I see that' s highlighted in a couple of places. In fact, whether we have a stated policy or not, when that analysis is done, it's done with that expectation. Acting Chairperson Cornell asked who was going to maintain the overlook. Town Planner Kanter stated that staff had talked about that with Ithacare, and Ithacare is proposing to maintain the overlook. Apparently, it turns out that a good portion of the overlook now is on their property. Mr. Macera stated that this historically has been maintained as I understand by Ithaca College and based on the approval of the college, Ithacare, and its representatives of development on this project, Ithacare will assume responsibility at the request of the town to provide the maintenance and the upkeep and the supervision, if you will, done voluntarily, and that's against a backdrop of what we understand to be the State's changes in plans to not want ® to spend state resources so any new responsibility can be taken on by Ithacare. The Town planning board itself said that it was not in the business of maintaining or pushing to maintain these types n • Planning Board Minutes 21 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 of areas and therefore asked that Ithacare be responsible for it. We agreed then, and we agree now. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that she had a question about 115D", does the DEIS say that the overlook extension would block views from Danby Road. Town Planer Kanter stated that issue would be addressed. Noel Desch stated that he thinks that the Board will be pleased with the results. Board Member Bell stated that he thought that part of the concern about the extension of the overlook is how the ownership of the overlook affects present use and the extension of the overlook. The overlook extension will not be an auto extension, it will be a pedestrian extension and there should certainly be discussion about whether people are actually going to get out of their cars and walk down this little pathway to take a look at the view. Mr. Bell stated that there was no mention of that, but it is part of the criticism. It's kind of a combination of "A ", "C" and "D ". ® Acting Chairperson Cornell asked if Mr. Bell was questioning whether people will get out and walk at the overlook. Board Member Bell responded, yes, he is questioning it, but he thinks there should be a response to the question that has been in fact raised. Mr. Bell stated that he meant that he thinks it's pretty obvious that this extension, this overlook really isn't going to work because people are not going to get out of their car and walk, it's obvious after being up there watching the way people do use the site. Mr. Bell stated that most of them don't get out, they just kind of sit there and look, so I think it's unlikely, given the way people behave, cars versus getting out of cars. Mr. Bell stated that people see an auto - oriented overlook as being a congestion overlook instead of an auto overlook that we're basically eliminating its function, so he thinks that should be addressed. Town Planner Kanter stated that part of addressing that, which he thinks Ithacare is doing, is also recognizing that this will be integrated from the design planning perspective as a pedestrian amenity that would be added to the site Mr. Kanter stated, again, that the extension is a possible mitigating measure. If it's not, then the Board will have to make a determination upon this statement whether it's a necessary mitigating measure. • Mr. Macera asked Mr.; Bell if he could educate him on this, because from recall, the issue was not to try to change people's habits of getting out of the car and walking, but rather for those 0 Planning Board Minutes 22 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 who have gotten out of their vehicles and have chosen to sit or picnic along that area, or for those who would like to take a walk, might this not act as a mitigating measure to permit people to walk down and to look further behind, around, or beyond the building. Mr. Macera stated, based on that principle, any extension of the overlook would be to provide an area that people could walk down to. The illustrations in the DEIS show that it's a relatively short distance to the end of the pavement beyond what is now commonly used as virtually half of that extension now and a change in the grade, which is one of the issues. Really in the existing overlook area and the actual new extension beyond what is now that area that comes out, is relatively insignificant. Board Memh going to be on to Mr. Bell you was going to be Mr. Desch er Ainslie the same pl would walk step down. stated that asked if the extension of the overlook ane. Mr. Ainslie stated that according down. Mr. Ainslie asked if the overlook it would be lower. Mr. Macera stated that the actual grade of the overlook would be about 601 feet at the lower end. Mr. Macera stated that the • proposal was originally discussed when this issue was advanced, and was to, in fact, either maintain the grade at that low point of about 601, which in effect would, from the roads that you're travelling downhill, would make the overlook extension look like it's actually going uphill. Or in fact perhaps maintain the same grade as 96B, which would continue the grade of the overlook in its current pattern and this would be presented in the materials for consideration. Board Member Ainslie stated that it would be a grade rather than steps to a lower point. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated, an extension of the overlook as originally proposed would at least visually be essentially flat extension northward, there isn't going to be any visible slope down, so yes, you're going to be maybe a foot or two below the current level of the parking lot, after you've walked that 100 feet. Mr. Frantz stated, in response to Mr. Bell's comments about the utility of the overlook, you're certainly right, where there are overlooks where there is no reason for people to get out, yes, they sit in their cars. And at the overlook as it's currently configured, from a design standpoint, it does not encourage people to get out and walk. But an extension could be designed in a way that would encourage people to get out of their cars and walk to the end to see the views. ® Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that she appreciated Mr. Frantz's comment, and feels that, indeed, with the existing 40 ADOPTED Board Minutes 23 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 CJ I overlook, there's no need to get out of your car, or any desire to, but if it was improved, there might be a desire to. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated, that the Board is not just talking about extending the overlook, but also providing something very simple for that hundred feet from the parking lot that would draw people out of their cars which could be as simple as two sections of cedar rail fence combined with vegetation, and that was .really the intent, not just to have the existing lawn extend out, but to have something that would draw the people out of their cars. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board left of on Number 6, Open Space and Development of the remainder of Ithacare site. Ms. Cornell stated that several comments on the question of what will happen to the remaining 19 acres of Ithacare land not covered during the current proposal. Board Member Wilcox stated that Ithacare needs to clarify their intentions. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that there was a reference, in past discussion, that a nature trail will lead to the overlook. Mr. Kanter stated that nature trails might be part of the design, to encourage people to get out and walk around, I mean that obviously would be part of the site plans approval to decide how that would happen, if it's desirable, but it's certainly one way of doing it. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that she thought that the Board needs to find out the other information before we can discuss the visual impacts in a lot of ways. Ms. Cornell stated that the Board does not want any lighting that is going to detract from the beauty of the night time view. Ms. Cornell asked that the discrepancy between Map 5 and the Town's Comprehensive Plan, and the DEIS figure 3A be explained. Board Member Ainslie stated that he had a concern about landscaping, and stated that there are some trees now planted between the overlook and Danby Road, and asked what will happen to them. • Planning Board Minutes 24 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 n U s Board Member Hoffmann stated that the trees have already grown enough so that the branches are above the point where you would only see the trunks, so they will not really obstruct the view. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the next issue in the outline to be addressed was whether or not the SLUD was passed illegally. Ms. Cornell asked if the Board thought that things are being dealt with in an appropriate manner or do we want to add extra guidance to our planning staff. Board Member Bell stated, that he is actually a little surprised to see this in here, it's in response to my letter, but I'm not sure it's actually part of a DEIS, I don't know that a DEIS should be talking about the process, evaluating the process itself as to whether it's wasn't a comment fault. legal, that was a comment to to the applicants. It wasn't the Board, but it the applicants' Town Planner Kanter stated that there are certain of the comments that were received we thought should be addressed just because of their nature and process -wise, at least in terms of where this might go, for instance if it has to go back to the Town Board, we felt that it would be appropriate to try to expand on, not in a sense answer your comment, but basically provide our thinking on it anyway and whether that's what the Board is going to accept as accurate, I don't know, that is for the Board to decide. Attorney Barney stated to Mr. Bell, that he thought that if the comment came from a member of the public, it would behoove this Board to respond to it, and he does not know why it should be treated in a different manner if it is a response to a Board Member's comment. Attorney Barney stated that he understands that the distinction you're making is a process issue, but nevertheless, a lot of the comments, the comments from many of the folks that are residents there, really when you get right down to it, didn't feel that the issue of the environmental significance or the environmental impact, but nevertheless I think it's appropriate we had a public hearing so we can respond to most of the issues that are raised in some fashion, some generally and some specifically. board Member Bell stated that it was not his intention to ask the applicant to respond to that question. Mr. Bell stated, at this point, for the draft, the board is asking them to respond. Town Planner Kanter stated this is the direction in which the final EIS is going to go. Some of the information in order to draft it, the expectation is that staff will write the response, and that is the case for this particular issue. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there is particular • Planning Board Minutes 25 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 information that just didn't come on board until after the adoption of the SLUD by the Town Board and I don't know if Mr. Bell has reviewed the record or not, but if he did, he might find out that these drawings actually confirm the information that the Town Board had before, when it made the negative determination of environmental significance, prior to the adoption of the SLUD. Mr. Frantz stated that he was just pointing out that he thinks it is important that Mr. Bell knows so that this issue could be clarified, and it is a part of the FEIS. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated, in general, the Board is satisfied with the direction of the FEIS the way it's being written up. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that an additional item under Other Business is Lucatelli's Variance. This is to construct a small restaurant - convenience store at 1456 Trumansburg Road, Town Planner Kanter stated that this project is scheduled for the Zoning Board of Appeals in December. Mr. Kanter stated that, normally, this would not come to the Planning Board for any recommendations because the Zoning Ordinance does not provide a • process for Planning Board recommendations on use variances but we, as staff, wanted to get your input anyway, because this seems like one that has some substantial issues. Mr. Kanter stated that he thought it would be appropriate to get some direct feedback from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kanter stated that staff has just sent the Planning Board the Zoning Board application, so that the Board has the same details that staff started off with. Mr. Kanter stated that this is a proposal for constructing a restaurant - convenience store in an agricultural zone up on Trumansburg Road. So anyway this is about maybe 1500 -2000 feet North of the DuBois intersection. Basically the character of this area is all agricultural, low - density residential, then the Woolf Lane subdivision. Mr. Kanter stated that the parcel goes fairly deep, and there's an existing house on the back part, there's a driveway that comes way up here. The house is on the back part of the lot, and I think there's a little schematic plan in your materials that they would be putting the restaurant kind of up in this front part of the open pasture. There's a fence around the pasture, it looks like it might have been for horses. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the baseline requirement for criteria, for a site for a convenience store was a highway with about 12,000 vehicles per day going up and down it, and a resident population of 8,000 people within either half or one • mile radius. This site meets neither criteria for a successful convenience store. S Planning Board Minutes 26 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 Town Planner Kanter stated that the Board might want to bring up something like, the Comprehensive Plan for the area recommends rural, residential along the frontage along Trumansburg Road, and then agricultural in the back. Mr. Kanter stated, that on one of the land resources maps in the Comprehensive Plan, it indicates, again, it's not actively farmed, but it shows the potential for prime agricultural soils in that general area, might be something to consider. The Planning Board should determine, basically, what is the effect on the character of the surrounding area, that's something that the Zoning Board will have to look at and that's something that the Planning might want to provide some feedback on. Board Member Bell stated that he thinks everybody is being very polite here. I appreciate Mr. Kanter's civil manner of presentation, but this is not a variance, this is a back door zoning change and should be treated as that, it doesn't even come close to a shadow of a reflection of the meaning of variance in terms of hardship. Mr. Bell stated that he means that some other guy's got some used restaurant equipment, I'm sorry to hear that, I'm sorry to hear about all his problems, but it is not a legitimate hardship. Board Member Bell stated that the whole thing is bizarre, the guy admits that he didn't have enough money to pay Shis back taxes, but now he's going to build a building. Board Member Bell stated that he is in the mortgage business, and from seeing what this guy's saying in the letter, there's no way this guy is going to get a mortgage. So I think those problems are unfortunate, but it's not up to us to solve those problems and the burden of proof for a variance is not whether the person has hardship, half of our population has that kind of a hardship, the burden is whether the zoning does not allow you to really accomplish the intended use on that land. And it's not up to us to just randomly give the most profitable use to anybody who happens to own a piece of land, or else everybody would be building shopping centers on every square inch of the earth, I mean, you know, it's just a back door zoning change and therefore should come to this Board and I don't think the Zoning Board of Appeals should even be looking at it. Board Member Bell stated that he wanted to add one other minor comment, this guy calls this a small restaurant and he's saying he's got 70 people, small to me is not 70 people. That sounds like a pretty good -sized place. Attorney Barney stated that there is nothing illegal or I mproper about applying for a variance. Attorney Barney stated that the issue is are they entitled to it. You were all talking • about issues that should be weighed in making a determination, but if the variance is denied, which I suspect will probably be the case, then if they want to re -zone, it would go back to the re -zone • Planning Board Minutes 27 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 process which actually would involved application to the Town Board, who then refers it to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the proposal is contrary to what the Comprehensive Plan suggests, and asked what it would do to the rural character. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board ought to be careful, this Board does not direct the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) what to do any more than the ZBA directs this Board what to do. The Boards are co-equal ...but I don't see that it's any problem or any harm if this Board wanted to either by motion or direct the staff to articulate some of the concerns in a way that is providing advisory suggestions to the ZBA. The Board determined that Town Planner Jonathan Kanter, having heard the Planning Board discussion, will be able to carry these ideas back to the ZBA. Town Planner Kanter stated when anything that requires a SEQR review, the planning staff basically does the SEQR for the Zoning • Board and so that's how we get flagged by these things and when something like this comes along, the staff will oftentimes provide a separate planning report or recommendation as a staff report to the Zoning Board, sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. One of my motives in bringing this to the Board leads me to and I've had some discussions with John Barney and we'll be pursuing this further, I'm sure, but I think there are some types of actions and use variances seem to be one, because we've.had several now where I think it probably would have been appropriate to have Planning Board input, where I would like to see a more formal referral process of use variances coming to the Planning Board, again, for advisory recommendations before the Zoning Board has a hearing on it. So that's something I asked John to look into a little bit more in terms of State laws that would allow us or not allow us to do that, but from what I can tell so far, I've done a little bit of preliminary research myself, State legislation not only doesn't say we can't do it, it almost seems to me to provide a very clear mechanism to do it, Town Law Section 271; there are two parts, one, basically without any additional local law or resolution or anything from the Town Board, the Planning Board has the power to make any kind of investigations, maps, reports, recommendations, relating to planning and development of the town as it seems desirable, that's basically what if your board, as a Planning Board, sees certain issues occurring in the town and feels it needs to make some kind of recommendation or comment to anybody on it, ® they can do that as long as it doesn't exceed the appropriations that the Town Board is providing you to do that with. • Planning Board Minutes 28 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 Mr. Kanter continued and stated, but beyond that, there's a Section 14A of Section 271 of the Town Law that allows the Town Board by resolution to provide for the reference of any matter or class of matters with certain exceptions to the Planning Board before final action is taken by the Town Board or other office or officer of the town. There are %a lot of discussions on that kind of thing in some of the planning and zoning literature which basically to me indicates that it's not only legal, but it's desirable to seek that kind of input from the Planning Board because the Planning Board should be the one board in the town of all the boards that has the best feeling and hands -on experience for land -use, planning and development occurring in the town, and I think as long as it's understood that any reports or recommendations that come through your Board are advisory recommendations and don't limit the ability of the approving authority, in this case the Zoning Board, from taking their final action, that it's not only appropriate but to me desirable to be able to do that, so anyway that's my speech for tonight, that's what I'll be pursuing. But anyway this was to me a good example to bring to the Board to get some specific feedback, you know, maybe we can start some kind of a process going and I certainly will attempt to bring things like that to your attention when they come about; meanwhile I'll try to work on some more formal process. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that she understands the importance of these two Boards being separate and equal, because there's two different functions and one is fall back from the other, etc. But in terms of planning, we're really both working on similar issues a number of times, so it seems like just as I think that we ought to talk to the Town Board sometimes about planning issues, especially with re- zoning, I think we ought to talk to the ZBA on occasion where the issues overlap. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he agreed with Mr. Kanter, lately there have been a number of occasions in the past few years in fact where the ZBA has granted variances without input from the Planning Board and then conditioned them on the Planning Board granting site plan approval, it is far better from the standpoint of the Planning Board to get the input to the ZBA before their decisions, and he feels that the ZBA should hopefully accept it as being appropriate. • • Planning Board Minutes 29 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 • r1 U Town Planner Kanter stated that it is definitely a policy matter and it's a legal matter. If we can do it legally then it's a policy question, situation does the Town Board want to give the Planning Board that specific opportunity for formal input. Those are the two questions that need to be answered. next time their bulbs go out, they replace them with something a Board Member Hoffmann brought up the issue of the lighting at Dr. Thompson's dental office on Snyder Hill, Town Planner Kanter stated that after hearing that was discussed at the last meeting, he went out there and took a look at the lighting that was done, and there's no question that it's pretty bright. Mr. Kanter stated, basically, what the problem was initially is that the use variance was granted and because it's a dentist's office, not attended by a resident, it created a situation where there was a need for security lighting of the building, and so basically they put in lighting fixtures that were intended to light up the building as a security device. It's possible that they overdid the wattage on the bulbs, that might be something we actually might be able to suggest to them, that the next time their bulbs go out, they replace them with something a little bit lower, but the fixtures themselves are basically what is needed for security purposes. Acting Chai neighbors. Town Planner specific comments driving by it, as rperson Cornell asked if it disturbed the Kanter stated that the Town has not gotten any from neighbors, it apparently affected people was the observation from Board Member Hoffmann, Board Member Hoffmann stated that her question is, why does a dentist's office need to have a building lit up like this, for security, there are a number of dentist's offices around town and I don't see any others that are lit up this way. Ms. Hoffmann stated that there was a dental office at Community Corners, Dr. Patrick's office, and that office was not lit up like Dr. Thompson's office is. Town Planner Kanter responded, that he thinks it is a business decision, but, equipment, medication, and all those kinds of things, and again because it's not attended and it's not in a business district, which I suppose if it were, if you had other adjacent businesses, again, that's part of the problem, it's an isolated property in what we felt was a residential area, the Zoning Board felt it was on the edge of a residential area, not directly affecting residences. Planner Cornish stated that a condition of the resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals, was that these issues be re- evaluated U C: LJ Planning Board Minutes 30 November 7, 1995 ADOPTED 2/6/96 in five years, and if there were complaints within that time, specifically concerning the lighting, and other issues, but the lighting was definitely put down as a condition, so I would say that if it is a concern that perhaps a letter that would be appropriate for the files to show that there actually was some concern over a period of time. Acting Chairperson Cornell stated that the letter should be written to Dr. Thompson's office expressing concerns and have a copy put into the files with Andy Frost of the Building and Zoning Office. Board Member Ainslie stated that right near him is the Muka development and that he had mentioned at the October 3, 1995 Planning Board Meeting that he had "For Sale" signs up, Patterson Real Estate, Mr. Ainslie stated that the signs are still up right opposite where Mr. Muka is building his cul -de -sac, and I think that the Board decided that until he could show that he had a water supply, that he should not sell lots to unsuspecting people, but it says "Lots for Sale -- Patterson Real Estate ", it says 1- o -t -s, it's right next to where he's pulling the logs out. Planner Cornish stated, regarding the Muka Subdivision, that she had driven by that site this morning, and Jonathan Kanter had also gone out there at a different time, and both observed that the logging road is not where the proposed road is to go, so I'm not sure what he's doing on that block. He is definitely logging, and that road is not the road that he proposed for the subdivision. Board Member Ainslie stated, but right next to that, there is a sign, "Lots for Sale" and then you go down about 500 feet and he has another sign, "Lot for Sale ". Town Planner Kanter stated that he was not sure if that is Mr. Muka's property or not, but that he saw the signs as well. Mr. Kanter stated that staff would call Mr. Muka to find out how his application is going. There being no further meeting, Acting Chairperson meeting. Business to be discussed at this Cornell closed this segment of the e C is Planning Board Minutes ADJOURNMENT 31 ADOPTED 2/6/96 November 7, 1995 Upon MOTION, Acting Chairperson Cornell declared the November 71 1995 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:090 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Mary Bryant, �/ Administrative Secretary. 1/22/96. DRAFTED: Emily J. Harpp Temporary Employee in absence of Recording Secretary, Starr Hays, Town of Ithaca Planning Board.