Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-08-17E FILE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, August 17, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member (7:06 p.m.); John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:11 p.m.); Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (7:18 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner, EXCUSED: Rod Howe, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning.. OTHERS: Shirley Egan, Cornell University; Steve Beyers, 1328 Slaterville Rd; Pat Long, 4 Schickel Rd; Dave Auble, 111 King Rd W; Evan Monkemeyer, Ithaca Estates; Bill Albern, Engineer; Boris Simkin, Contractor; Robert Berggren, 136 Compton Rd; Jeffrey Lallas, Cornell University; Ann Hajek, 205 Salem Dr; Richard DuPuis, Ithaca Journal; John Keefe, Cornell University; Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 9, 2004 and August 11, 2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, 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 August 11, 2004, Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18 on Elmira Road (divided into 45.141 and 2.617 acre parcels), Neighborhood Commercial and Conservation Zones. The original subdivision approval was granted on August 22, 2000, and required consolidation of the 45.141 -acre parcel with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 =1 -5.2 within six months. The applicant received two extensions of the consolidation timeframe requirement, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED - which-mbst recently will expire on August 31, 2004. The applicant is requesting an open -ended extension. Sally A. Cortright, Owner; NYS Office of Parks - Finger Lakes Region, Applicant; Sue A. Poelvoorde, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Any discussion amongst the board? Board Member Hoffmann —Well, I really... Chairperson Wilcox — There being none... Board Member Hoffmann — I really don't like an open - ended extension like this. I would prefer to set it for a longer term like maybe five years, but I don't ... even though in this case I understand the circumstances, I don't want to create additional obstacles. I would still prefer it to have a longer time period like I would propose five years. Board Member Conneman — I agree with Eva. I think there ought to be some limit, whatever that is. Ms. Balestra - If I may, we anticipated that and so the resolution part a actually states consolidation of the parcel within six months of the acquisition of the property by the New York State Parks Historic Preservation Office. So it is open ended to an extent that... Chairperson Wilcox — The subdivision is open ended. Ms: Balestra — Right... Chairperson Wilcox — It is not the requirement that the large parcel be subdivided, hopefully acquired by New York State Parks, be consolidated with the neighboring parcel because it doesn't have ... (inaudible). Ms. Balestra — That is the extension that they are asking for. It is not exacting for the subdivision approval; it is more a consolidation request. Board Member Hoffmann — But they want it open -ended until it is actually purchased. Ms. Balestra — Right and there are some legal issues with the former owner's estate. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I understand that from all the paper's we were given and from what we heard before and the six -month thing is something that we have done with all these things before. That is nothing new either. Chairperson Wilcox — That is new because we require the subdivision to actually occur within six months and consolidation. Here we are only requiring consolidation to occur within the six months of whenever the subdivision occurs. So it is different. I% PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — All right. But I think we have had other cases where we have had longer terms than six months but then they have had, once the action or whatever it was has happened, they have had six months to consolidate. That is not new. That's what I meant. I still would prefer to have the extension be limited and then the six -month thing added on to it. Board Member Thayer — Do you have any idea, Chris, how long it is going to be? Ms. Balestra — No. Board Member Thayer — None what so ever, huh? That's why they wanted it open - ended. Board Member Conneman — Even five years seems like a long time to me. Ms. Balestra — It seems like it should get done within that timeframe. Board Member Hoffmann — So I would like to propose that we change the resolution so that it doesn't say that it is open ended but says that it is extended for a term of five years unless someone else has some other figure that they prefer. Chairperson Wilcox — Twenty to life open ended, can we go with ten? Board Member Thayer — Ten is fine. I need to get four in agreement here. If I can't get Board Member Hoffmann — It just has to be a limit. The board agreed upon having a ten -year limit. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. and invited the public to address the board on the issue. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox moved the resolution as drafted. Board Member Talty seconded the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — Changes? Ms. Balestra — We don't have the wording just yet. Chairperson Wilcox — John, good timing. I'll catch draft resolution in front of you grants approval for an subdivision and the board has requested that we no t time limit and we have agreed to ten years, you up real quick. The proposed, open ended period of time for the make it open ended that we set a 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — Ten years for... Chairperson Wilcox — For the Cortright subdivision for the New York State Parks acquisition of land for the Black .Diamond Trail. The problem is, I believe, is settling the Cortright estate. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. There are some legal entanglements with the Cortright estate, I think specifically debt. Chairperson Wilcox — We have granted two extensions to the original resolution extending the time period for which they obtain the parcel. They asked for open ended. The board is unwilling to go open ended so we have agreed to extend it for ten years. Then there is a condition in there that they would have to consolidate within six months of actually acquiring the parcel. Ms. Ritter — It looks like number one could be rewritten to say to allow an extension for up to five years... Chairperson Wilcox — Ten. Ms. Ritter — Ten years ... either it is going to say to consolidate the 45 acres or to subdivide the property. Condition a says the consolidation has to happen within six months after the acquisition so... Board Member Hoffmann — Just a housekeeping question while John is working on that. If one wants to propose something like this, would it be better to call you in the afternoon before the meeting so you can prepare a second optional resolution? Ms. Balestra — Yeah, it could be helpful for us to know ahead of time if it's not an inconvenience for any of the members to call. Attorney Barney — What is item c? Ms. Balestra — That is a carry over from the original resolution. Attorney Barney — I would suggest probably in paragraph one, to allow an extension of up to ten years of the time period to consolidate ...(inaudible) ... then pick up submission... Board Member Hoffmann — Could you say that once more a little more slowly? Attorney Barney — Sure. In paragraph one, change that starting in the third line to read to allow after 2003, to allow an extension of up to ten years of the time. period to consolidate the 45 acres of the Cortright subdivision with adjacent tax parcel 35. -1 -5.2 subject to the following conditions and "a" would be consolidation of 45 acre parcel...(not audible) ... within six months the acquisition by the New York State Parks 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED and Recreation... within ten years of the date of this resolution whichever... then submission of... Did I go too fast for you? Board Member Hoffmann — No that's fine. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — That's acceptable to me. Kevin, change acceptable? Board Member Talty — Yes. The board voted on the resolution and the motion was passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -081: Modification of Previous Conditions of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18, 653 Elmira Road MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Modification of previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18 on Elmira Road (divided into 45.141 and 2.617 acre parcels), Neighborhood Commercial and Conservation District. The original subdivision approval was granted on August 22, 2000, and required consolidation of the 45.141 acre parcel with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -5.2 within six months. The applicant received two extensions of the consolidation timeframe requirement, which most recently will expire on August 31, 2004. The applicant is requesting an open -ended extension. Sally A. Cortright, Owner; NYS Office of Parks - Finger Lakes Region, Applicant; Sue A. Poelvoorde, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, in granting Modification of Condition 1(a) Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18 on August 3, 20037 modified the condition of approval by allowing an extension that states "Within one year of this approval, consolidation of the 45.141 acre parcel (Parcel B) with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35- 1 -5.2" (now owned by N. Y.S. Parks), "and submission to the Town of Ithaca of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Office for consolidation of said parcels ", and 3. The applicant has submitted a request asking that the Planning Board provide an open -ended extension on the consolidation requirement, due to the complexity of the acquisition of the Cortright property by the applicant, until such time that the acquisition is complete, and 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED 4. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, on August 22, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 17, 2004, reviewed and accepted as adequate a letter requesting said modifications from Sue A. Poelvoorde, Natural Resources Planner for the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants modification of previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Tax Parcel No. 35 -1- 18, most recently granted August 2, 2003, to allow an extension of up to ten years of the time period to consolidate the 45.141 acres of the Cortright subdivision with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -5.2 (now owned by N. Y.S. Parks), subject to the following conditions: a. Consolidation of the 45.141 acre parcel (Parcel B) with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -5.2 within 6 months of the acquisition of Parcel B by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, or within 10 years of the date of this resolution, whichever is earlier, and submission to the Town of Ithaca of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Office for consolidation of said parcels, b. Submission for signing by the Chair of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark line prints, prior to filing with Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and c. Submission to the Attorney for the Town of the proposed deed for Parcel B for approval and confirmation of the description of the easement granting access (Parcel B). The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 32 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road L PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots and one 1' /z +/= acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owners Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albern, Agent, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Bill Albern, Engineer Hello. We only have one problem with the resolution and I'll get to that in a moment. First I would like to go through where we have changed the drawings to reflect the Planning Board preliminary plot approval. We've added one thing that you did not request and let me go through it very quickly. First of all, we have now an extension of Schickel Road coming through here, which was requested by the preliminary plat. The tree location surveyed. It wasn't just eyeballed. TG Miller went out and surveyed and flagged the trees. I think maybe some of you may have been out there and we are showing that on the drawing. We are showing a 25 -foot separation between the property line and any construction that can take place. We have moved the sanitary sewer from the north side of the street to the south side of the street in order to avoid the trees. So I think we have addressed the tree issue. This is drawing number three. I have two drawings on this board. On Erik Whitney's drawings RWD2 you will find we have the road, we have the grassy swale, we have the sidewalk. There is no roadside ditch on the east and west drawings. They are roads. There is a storm sewer. We have storm sewers on these two roads. There is no storm sewer here. You will have a ditch, but it is a very shallow ditch. There will be a ditch here and that almost has to be to replace the pond that we lost and this ditch is the water storage area and it needs to be open, but you people, the maintenance people, can get at it much easier than any pond. So we now have ditches here and ditches here with these two long roads have storm sewers. Now, not an item on your table, in fact it is not shown on the drawings and we are going to ask for a change of your resolution. This extended right -of -way, about .9 acres, the owner has changed their mind and they would like to retain ownership of that property. We'll ask that your resolution reflect that. It would become lot 32 so you would have 33 lots in the whole subdivision. Shall I go over that again? Here is an extended right -of -way and this was originally part of the owner's property and we discussed what to do with it at a couple of sketch plan meetings and so forth and it was decided that we would have it labeled as an extended right -of -way and would become part of the Town's property so that the owner would not have to pay taxes on it. Since the development of these drawings in June, the owner has decided no, I want to keep that piece of property. I do not want to dedicate it to the Town. He wants 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED to keep that piece of property. It is about .9 acres and it would become lot 32. It cannot be constructed upon at the present time and then we have a 33 -unit subdivision. Attorney Barney — Does this lot meet our lot size requirements? Mr. Albern — No. It would not. Yes, it would not. I agree. However, that just means that we can't build upon it. It doesn't mean that we can't... Chairperson Wilcox — It means more than that. Attorney Barney — It means you have to get a variance. There is no way we can approve it without a variance. Mr. Albern — Oh. Attorney Barney — You can't just create a lot. The subdivision requirements require the Town Planning Board to approve subdivisions that meet the requirements of our statute. Unless it is done as a cluster zone, which we can talk about. Boris Simkin, Developer It doesn't matter. We can call it not lot, but can we retain ownership of this parcel and this piece of land. Attorney Barney — It is a lot. You are creating a piece or described or mentioned in a way that probably doesn't comply with out ... I mean I have to check to make sure. Mr. Albern — It is .9 acres, John, it would not meet the requirements. Chairperson Wilcox — The depth looks like the problem. Attorney Barney — It is 120 feet deep. What is the depth required? Mr. Smith — Two hundred. Chairperson Wilcox — We cannot as a Planning Board approve a lot that doesn't meet subdivision. Mr. Albern — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — We can recommend to the Zoning Board that they grant you the necessary variance, but we can't approve it. Mr. Albern — Okay. But can you give us final subdivision approval with that recommendation or are we going to hold up the final... Fool PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — I guess the question I would ask, Bill, what's the reason to have the property? Mr. Albern — Well, there is a possibility of making a deal with Ithaca College. This is Ithaca College property here. And the only thing is to make a deal with Ithaca College or purchase a couple of hundred feet and put two lots in there...that's the purpose. Right? Mr. Simkin — Yeah. Basically right now we are in the process of negotiating with Ithaca College that 25 acres next to property which we own and they don't want to sell this. If they do, in this case we would like to keep this and subdivide it later. Mr. Albern — If that happens, we would probably have to keep the right of way for a road over here someplace, but that's a future problem. Attorney Barney — It's just raising a whole pantry of issues to consider. I don't know. If you want final approval tonight, I'm not sure that you really want to ask for this. I think if you want this then you need to come back... Mr. Albern — Can we come back in a month and buy it back for a buck? Chairperson Wilcox — You don't want to deed it to the Town and then ask for it back. Attorney Barney — In the Town's position, if it is surplus property we have an auction. Mr. Simkin — Again, what options do we have? We want to keep this piece of land. We don't want to dedicate it to the Town at this point. How do we make it work? Attorney Barney — One option is to come back with a redesigned plant that makes it a full sized lot or legal lot. Go to Ithaca College and come back with additional property that would enable it to be a legal size lot. Third is to make your deal with Ithaca College and have it as a condition of approval that the property get consolidated with a piece of land that Ithaca College owns. Or leave it they way you have it and get your final approval tonight. I think the first three options all require going elsewhere or delay. Mr. Simkin — Okay. If you leave it as is at this stage, can we go to the Planning Board later and ask not to dedicate this parcel to the Town? Attorney Barney — How much later? Mr. Simkin — Maybe a month. Maybe two months. Attorney Barney — What are you going to be doing on this subdivision if you get final subdivision tonight? Are you going to start the infrastructure on the subdivision? Mr. Simkin — Yes. 9 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Walker — Are you planning to build this phases? Mr. Simkin — Yes. We are going to do Phase I, which is seven lots. Mr. Walker — That would be lots one through five... Chairperson Wilcox — Lots 1 though 5 and 23 and 24. Mr. Walker — Could we grant final subdivision approval for those and preliminary for the remainder? Attorney Barney — That's a good idea. Mr. Walker —Then you can amend the subdivision... Mr. Simkin — Exactly. This is going to happen in two or three years because it is going to be the last phase of the subdivision. We don't want to dedicate it so... Mr. Albern — So if we can get final subdivision approval on those five or six lots down here... Board Member Talty — And what is Phase II? Chairperson Wilcox — Phase II is 6 -11, and 25 -28. Attorney Barney — It would give you time to go back and negotiate... . Mr. Albern — Give us subdivision approval on Phase I and Phase II Chairperson Wilcox — You have preliminary on the whole thing so you can.. .if we were to grant final subdivision for the lots you cause Phase 1, lots 1 -5, 23 and 24, then subject to conditions, then you could start construction. You have time to deal with what we are going to do with the parcel now labeled extended right -of -way .9 acres, come up with something that is acceptable to staff so that it can be brought to this board for consideration and if it is acceptable to this board, then possibly the back parcel and the rest of the lots. Would that work? Mr. Albern — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — We will give the public a chance to speak and they may say something. Mr. Albern — We are going to talk about final approval on the first phase. That's fine. Chairperson Wilcox — Staff, we okay so far? Nothing jumps out as a problem yet? 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — How far is the road going to be constructed? Mr. Albern — Up to the last driveway in Phase I. One through five. The turn - around would be right in here, John, at the end of five. Attorney Barney — Then we are going to need a revision to show a temporary turn- around. Mr. Albern — The turn - arounds are not shown. They are mentioned in the literature at the end of each phase. Attorney Barney — Right, but my problem is if you do it as a phase we need to have a map showing the road. If you do it as a phase, the disadvantage is that you may never get final approval for the remaining phase for whatever reason in which event we need to get a road that's got a turn - around that we can use for plowing purposes. So we need to build in on this map a temporary turn - around. Mr. Albern — Okay. You can make that a condition. Mr. Walker — I think we can do that at the time the Town Board accepts the road. Attorney Barney — I think it should be condition of tonight's... Mr. Walker — Yeah, inclusion of tonight also. Attorney Barney — So as I understand it, you are trying to do your Phase I so that you would be able to sell lot five? Mr. Albern — Yes, sir. Attorney Barney — So you really want your hammerhead out on lot six, right? Mr. Albern — Well, it would be at the end of five. Attorney Barney — It's going to take up one of your lots. I mean a hammerhead is where you've gotta make it ... Mr. Albern — Well, temporarily it would take up one lot. Yeah. Attorney Barney — But you want it to take up I assume part of lot six. Mr. Albern — Right. Board Member Hoffmann— I have one question... 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Walker — A large component of the storm water management facilities are located in that first section of Larissa Lane as part of the enlarged road ditch and there is an underdrain. So the facilities that will be built on Larissa Lane as part of phase I will be more than adequate to handle any development that is done in phase I. Chairperson Wilcox — Those seven lots. Mr. Walker — Those seven lots will actually mitigate additional stormwater from part of phase II also. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — My only concern is what if as someone suggested only phase I gets built and nothing more happens. How does the Town get access to the park? Ms. Balestra — The park is going to... Board Member Thayer — The park hasn't been dedicated yet. Mr. Smith — The park would be subdivided in this... Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. The park would not be subdivided and dedicated. Ms. Balestra — It was going to be dedicated as part of phase II. Board Member Hoffmann — But what if phase II doesn't happen? Then there would be no park. Chairperson Wilcox — It's a good question. Do the five members of this board think by granting a subdivision for seven buildable lots, we need or want a half acre park up front or whether we are willing to accept getting the one and a half acre park when and if the remaining lots get final subdivision approval. Board Member Hoffmann — Its not all remaining lots, it would have to be after phase II. Chairperson Wilcox — What I'm saying is, what I believe the applicant would do, and we don't know for sure, is that they would get ... they want final subdivision approval tonight for seven lots. Then at some point, a month, six weeks, they will come back for final subdivision approval for the remainder of the lots. So they are looking at two phases for the final approval. We are looking at, at least three phases for actual building of the homes, actually four phases. We get access to the park once they get to phase II. I'm comfortable with that. What we are giving up is if they never get...if they never go beyond the first seven lots we never get the park. It has happened before with the subdivision across the street from this one. Wally Wiggins for examples. He never actually... 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Ms. Ritter — I'm not sure if that was going to be a park or if that had something to do with Buttermilk Falls State Park, Mr. Walker — In the second phase there was a small town park similar to this and it would have been granted during the.second phase. Chairperson Wilcox — Once he got the second phase, but he hasn't even gotten to phase I yet. Mr. Walker — Well, he's got final approval on phase I. He hasn't done any of the construction. Board Member Connemara — Why ...12 be included in phase II? Attorney Barney — I beg your pardon... Board Member Conneman — You are going to stop at lot 11 and dedicate the park, but lot 12 is not included? Chairperson Wilcox — The question is if you look at your map up there, you have lot 12 as part of phase III. The question is why not include lot 12 as part of phase II. Mr. Albern - It could be. Board Member Thayer — To get to the dedicated park. Mr. Albern — The fact that phase II does not include 12 does not mean that we would not extend... Chairperson Wilcox — It just seems to make sense to include 12 as part of phase II. Mr. Albern — We could change that when we come back here. Board Member Conneman — Okay. Board Member Thayer — It doesn't say that we are going to get the park in phase II. Attorney Barney — Well if you just give final approval tonight of lots one through seven; they will come back in for final approval. I think then you establish the condition and the timing of the park with the final approval for the rest of it. I suggest you would also want a submission... inaudible... Mr. Simkin — In this case in phase II, should we do lots six through twelve, and 25 to 30? Because if you do the road then it makes sense. 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — I think you might want to go to 31. Board Member Talty — Well, we are still going to have to have a turn - around after stage two. Mr. Simkin — But in this case you can do turn - around to lot 31. 1 would say phase II probably 6 -12 and 25 -30. Okay? Chairperson Wilcox — Then 31 would: be the hammerhead. Just like six would be used... Attorney Barney — Don't you want to make the turn in the road? Mr. Albern — The hammerhead should probably be right at the end of the park. Attorney Barney — Then your road would be partially built to continue on. Mr. Albern — And the driveway for 31 could be off of here. Attorney Barney — Its up to you. Mr. Albern — Its in the future, so we'll worry about that when we come back for phase 11. I have one more thing. In your resolution, item 1 ". If you were to go to item 'T' in your resolution ... (Mr. Albern read the condition). Item 'T' requires the water service improvements to be fully complete before any building permit is issued. We would like that changed to be commitment to construct the water service and pressure improvements to the Danby Road /Schickel Road area to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits and completion of the improvements prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy. So once there was a commitment to build the water service, building permits could then be issued so the home could be started. It is going to take several months to build a home and then the home and the water service could be constructed concurrently. Attorney Barney — (comments not audible) Mr. Albern — We don't know yet. Mr. Walker knows. Mr. Walker — There is on site improvements, of course, of watermain that has to be constructed on the site along with the road infrastructure and the sewer infrastructure... Mr. Albern — And that's all part of the project. Mr. Walker — That's all part of the property and then the off site improvement is in Kings Way. Its construction of several hundred feet of water main to bi- pass... bring the higher pressure to the south end of Danby Road and we have been working out a negotiation to get that built with the developer. As long as that is substantially complete or 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED substantially under progress, to really protect the Town if it wasn't fully built we would want to make sure we had some kind of financial instrument probably to guarantee it was built, a bond or... Mr. Albern — That's why I said a commitment to construct. What that commitment is, is up to you. Mr. Walker — I would say if it was physically under construction and the contractor was working on it and I had a schedule and I knew it was going to be done shortly, then I would be comfortable with that. If it wasn't under construction, but everybody was staging up to it I would probably want to see a letter of credit because you have to have the money in and to pay the contractor that could be released... Mr. Albern — My suggestion is strictly a commitment to construct has been made and what that commitment is, is up to you. Chairperson Wilcox — Two things. I want Dan to be comfortable and I want John to be comfortable. Mr. Albern — So what we are saying is... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Attorney Barney — I don't like the fact of houses starting to be constructed without the water service being assured that it would there before ... it was part of the problem with this subdivision from day one, inadequate water supply or water pressure. Chairperson Wilcox — Why do you say that, John? Attorney Barney — You get in a situation where you've got a house that is 3/4 up and all of a sudden you get the plight of the builder coming in saying look I got this house built and I want to get it in and I want to get done, but I don't have the water service done because the rock was too much or whatever, whatever, whatever the excuse is. Chairperson Wilcox — And can you please give me a Certificate of Occupancy? I promise I'll.., Attorney Barney — I would be much happier to see it done prior to the issuance of any building permits. I suppose ... are all of the lots on 1, 21 3... Mr. Walker — They have frontage right now. Attorney Barney — How are they? Is there water pressure there? Mr. Walker — It would not be adequate. How many building permits were you looking at? 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Mr. Simkin — (not audible) Mr. Albern — Jon Andersson wanted... Mr. Simkin — Maybe none. Maybe we'll do water first. Mr. Walker — I would prefer to see the major infrastructure that is going to serve those houses done and that would include the Kings Way improvement plus the part of the infrastructure that has to serve it with the sewer line and so on. Mr. Simkin — Yeah, but there is no reason for Town because basically we are going to invest a lot of money in infrastructure and after that we are going to invest money in house construction. We can't get Certificate of Occupancy until the water service... there's no risk. Mr. Walker — Then we put a lot of pressure on the Building Department because people ... we have a situation now. There's a current subdivision that has been approved. They are that close to getting the sewer line done, but its not done yet and we have been getting a lot of people calling and crying on the phone saying oh, please, we gotta sell this house now and we have to say no. So we want to avoid that problem. Mr. Simkin — I don't mind to put down if you feel comfortable in this case that lets do it this way. Before issuing building permit, we are obligated to put bond... Attorney Barney — How about a compromise that would be a limit on the number of building permits, number one and number two that the water infrastructure be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits or if they are not that a bond is posted or a letter of credit or other financial security to the satisfaction of the Town sufficient to build all of the infrastructure and three a consent or a waiver or deed or whatever it would take to allow us to go on to the property to build is provided to the Town. Mr. Simkin — This is not our property. It is public road. It has nothing to do with property. Its Town property. Attorney Barney — So we don't have a problem with that and I would limit it to, to no more than a couple of building permits and no Certificates of Occupancy regardless until the work is finished whether we're doing it or you're doing it. Mr. Simkin — This is fair enough. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Hold on. How do we feel? Board Member Conneman — I think that's a good compromise. 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Its getting complicated here though isn't it? So we are all comfortable? Board Member Hoffmann — I'm a little uneasy about it still, but I'm willing to go along if it is just a few ... how many building permits? Attorney Barney — Two. Mr. Walker — Actually lot 1 and lot 2 are big enough right now, they are over 1 acre a piece, and they could actually be built on probably without any water or sewer infrastructure. There is probably enough room to get a septic system on there and possibly a well under the current regulations. Attorney Barney — What is... Mr. Walker — You don't need it. What I'm saying is if the sewer wasn't built and if the water wasn't finished, there would be a way to drill a well and put a septic system on it. Attorney Barney — Are we talking about water and sewer? Mr. Walker — Water and sewer. Attorney Barney — Both? Okay. Mr. Simkin — Yeah, it doesn't matter Chairperson Wilcox = Anything else? Mr. Albern — Everything else in your resolution is fine with us. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from the board about what we have heard or conditions in the draft resolution? Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to comment about the tree species that were proposed for the homeowners to choose from. I believe dogwoods lately have had a number of problems surviving because of various diseases and such and I was wondering if you could think of some other flowering tree. Mr. Albern — We can change that. We have to change the one already,. the spruce or whatever it was. . Board Member Hoffmann — The Norway spruce has to be changed to something else. Mr. Albern — I didn't think that the dogwoods were having problems in developed areas. We had dogwoods on our property and we are all woods and we had lost them. I was Ii VA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED under the impression that in developed areas and not in a wooded area that wasn't true, but we would be happy to change it. Board Member Hoffmann — You might want to check with somebody who is knowledgeable. Another flowering tree that I think does not have problems, which is a native is the service berry or shadbush, which is a flowering tree, might be a substitute, but check into it. I don't know what other people on the board think about that, but would think that would be an acceptable substitute. Mr. Albern — So we'll change the dogwood to a shadbush. Ms. Balestra — So I think item "a" also... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. We'll get to that. Any other questions with regard to the proposal as presented tonight, not as we expected when we reviewed the materials before us. Board Member Hoffmann — We got a copy of the restrictive covenants and there were some typos in it, but also the last item talks about the expiration being 2029 so it's a 25- year covenant I guess. Is that a good idea do you think? It's on the third page at the very end of the covenants. Chairperson Wilcox — That they would expire in 25 years. Is that normal or what's the purpose? Attorney Barney — Quite frankly I don't like to see covenants that are iron clad with no provision for an amendment would last forever. 100 years from now is going to be something different in use that these covenants are totally inconsistent with. So the main reason you have them initially is to control the initial construction of homes and once they are done in accordance with the restrictive covenants, from that point forward you usually rely on your zoning to take care of it. So a 20 or 25 -year period is not an unusual limitation. The other alternative is to make an indefinite time, but build in a mechanism for them to be amended with the approval of this board and by typically a 3/4 vote of the people who own houses within certain acres,of the property. Chairperson Wilcox — These things are becoming more and more common. Board Member Hoffmann — I actually have a question about the very end of paragraph 13 of that same page. I really don't understand what is intended with the last two sentences. Attorney Barney — I don't want to take the words out of your mouth, but I think that the purpose there is to say that somebody that lives at one end of the development has the right to enforce a restrictive covenant against somebody at the other end of the development even though by virtue their house is being a considerable distance from iuso PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED the one that is in violation. One could argue that they are not injured violation so that is basically the... Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Are these covenants going to be gone over again? Chairperson Wilcox — They are subject to final review. Mr. Smith — The question that we had on the covenant under number 11 and 12 deals with the tree conservation and the dry swale maintenance, which would also expire in 25 years. It seems like the maintenance and those types of things would still be relevant. Attorney Barney — You are right. Those two should...the only thing with tree conservation is this is written as existing trees shall be maintained but if a tree dies, falls over, you have to put a replacement tree up by ... I think you probably want to spell out that existing trees shall be maintained as long as they are reasonably healthy and if they become diseased they be replaced with trees that will grow to the same ... I don't think we want to say that we have to replace a 15 inch maple with a 15 inch maple. Then you are right. The dry swale maintenance needs to last into basically perpetuity unless there is some other drainage system that is established. Chairperson Wilcox — So in addition to being responsible for maintaining the sidewalks, they would be responsible fro maintaining the dry swales. Ms. Ritter — What would we do? Say that everything else expires except for 11 and 12? Attorney Barney — Yeah, I would say unless otherwise amended or altered these covenants except the ones set forth in 11 and 12 and whatever other ones may have enduring responsibilities built in with them. Mr. Walker — Actually, John, there is going to have to be an agreement for each of the lots that has a dry swale on it with the Town providing us with access to do emergency maintenance ... (inaudible) ... on other projects and that would be a separate agreement attached to the deed which would not... Attorney Barney — Well, in fact, there could be one agreement with the developer, but it pertains to a lot and as each lot is separately... well it becomes with each deed specifically is made subject to the responsibilities as set forth in the agreement. Mr. Walker — I don't know the best legal way to do it, but if it is written right into the deed of the lot it is usually cleaner than having it...l know it takes more time to write an abstract up and it costs more money that way. Attorney Barney — We charge by the word so we make it as wordy as possible. 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. and invited members of the public to address the board. Robert Berggren, 136 Compton Rd I just wanted to let the board know, my piece of property is actually designated as Compton Park in the southeast corner of this proposal that adjoins it. That was originally owned by myself and my wife and when we subdivided on Compton Road it had to be left as open space. In the minutes of the meeting back then, the mid `80s, we weren't going to be given that variance for that, subdivision unless we deeded that over to the Town, which was done. However with this project going on and the other one behind us or on the east side that is going to take place, we would like to get ownership back of this parcel that is designated as Compton Park. It is open space. It can't be built on. It can never be built on. It is a protection for us ... a buffer. So I just wanted to let the Town and the board knows that that's what is in the process. I have talked with my attorney, Peter Grossman, who was wiling to filing papers intending to sue the Town just to get that back. Attorney Barney — Peter Grossman is not going to sue the Town. I can tell you that right now. Mr. Berggren — Well I talked with his secretary today. Attorney Barney — Well, I'm glad that you talked to his secretary. Peter Grossman is my law partner and it would be a slight conflict for him to sue the Town. So if you are going to be suing the Town, be our guest, but Peter I am quite certain is probably not aware of this. Mr. Berggren — It doesn't have to go to a legal thing, this is just to protect us. Chairperson Wilcox — So why are you telling the Planning Board this? Mr. Berggren — Actually I had no intention of telling the Planning Board this. I was just talking to my neighbor, Tessa Flores, who suggested that I come down and let the board know this. So that is the only purpose. Whether we had possession of it or whether it was kept, as open space in the Town's name would not have any affect on this. Attorney Barney — Has it been deeded over to the Town? Mr. Berggren — It has been deeded over to the Town. Attorney Barney — As parkland? Mr. Berggren — No, as a vacant lot. I did check that with the tax records back about two months ago when I talked with someone down here. 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — Okay. There is a.. .if it is deeded as general purpose land, the Town has some flexibility on what it does with it, but that is a Town Board decision. It is not a Planning Board decision. If it is deeded parkland, the Town has very little discretion what they can do with it because it takes an act of the New York State Legislature to undo parkland dedication. Mr. Berggren — I understand that. Attorney Barney — I don't know if it qualifies for one or the other. Chairperson Wilcox — What does this have to do with the subdivision? Mr. Berggren — Well since this borders this, it was part of that open space or parkland. That's what it has to do with this subdivision. I don't think it is going to affect the decision on the subdivision at all. That is not why I am here. I think the subdivision is fine. I mean that's growth, but it is a protection for us. It really ... at the time that it was taken and Mr. Barney was the attorney at the time, my attorney at that time I believe was Bill Seldin had told me. He said we can get this piece of land back for you. It was taken by extortion. It was in the minutes of the meeting. I can get this back for you. That is what I was told. We didn't pursue it because... Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask? Can we not pursue this tonight? It doesn't get us any place closer to making a decision. Mr. Berggren — That's fine. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else you would like to say? Mr. Berggren — No. Attorney Barney — With equally colorful words like extortion and suing... Mr. Berggren — I'm just telling you what my lawyer said. I didn't make up that word. Attorney Barney — That's fine. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. Anybody else this evening? Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion? Questions? Would someone like to move the final subdivision approval draft resolution as drafted? 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Thayer moved the resolution and Board Member Talty seconded the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — John is going to have to write a chapter or two. Was staff aware of these last minute changes? Mr. Albern, can you hear me? I think everybody involved, staff, attorney, engineer, Planning Board would be much better served if these changes were not saved until the very end. That your intention to do something different with that extended right -of -way could have been communicated earlier to everybody involved so that the appropriate consideration could have been given. Ms. Balestra — I did receive a phone : call saying that they were considering doing something different, but we didn't get anything in writing about it so I assumed the project was going to go forward as planned. Chairperson Wilcox — It really does help you, it helps all of us so that these issues can be considered before hand by the staff and they can prepare the recommendation. Mr. Barney, are you prepared? Attorney Barney — I think we all ought to work though this one kind of provision by provision since the ballgame has changed a little bit. Chairperson Wilcox — That includes staff as well to work through this. Any change to resolved 1 a either part 1, 2, or 3? Ms. Balestra — That would be part of Phase III at this point, so if we are only giving final approval for the Phase I then it doesn't necessarily need to be on there. Right? I think it can be struck. Attorney Barney — Well, right at the very beginning we want to say that the Planning Board hereby grants final subdivision approval for Phase I of the proposed West View 32 -lot subdivision located and down through after that consisting of Lots 1 -5, 23 and 24 and associated road, utilities, infrastructure and road turn - around subject to the following conditions. And then we think "a" is not necessary, Chris? Ms. Balestra — No, because it deals with the extension of Schickel Road and the tree preservation... Mr. Albern — I would hope ;that the preliminary and final approval is here, but the rest of it ...(not audible)... Attorney Barney — You have preliminary approval. Mr. Albern — We don't have preliminary plat approval on this drawing. Mr. Walker — You have preliminary with conditions. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Ms. Balestra — Right. They have preliminary with conditions... Mr. Walker — You probably ought to have the conditions to modify the preliminary to meet all the concerns that were raised at the preliminary... Ms. Balestra — Right. That is what part "a"... Mr. Walker — So I would say ... I think we still need to have the revisions... Attorney Barney — I think I'm more in Chris's camp. I think we really need these revisions when we are granting final approval for that segment of the subdivision that these deal with. Do we really want to get into these now? Unless you want revised preliminary approval. I'm mean that's... Mr. Walker — Well, the only thing that... Attorney Barney — To be honest with you Bill, if you want suggest that we adjourn. There is only so much drafting I top of my head and now we've got enough curve balls in really want to focus on what you have to have for lots 1 -7, with the rest we can deal with the rest at that point in time. anyway. There's no other way around it. So "a" would corr Ms. Balestra — It wouldn't be forgotten, to do that then I'm going to can do at a meeting off the here already that I think we Then when you come back You have to come back now ie out. Chairperson Wilcox — So 1 a" comes out? Including subparts 1, 2, 3? Ms. Balestra — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I think the rest need to stay. Attorney Barney — "b" stays. Actually we could put in a new "a" which would be the modification of the subdivision plat to show a hammerhead turn - around satisfactory to the Director of Engineering and the Town Highway Superintendent adjacent to or on lot 6. Chairperson Wilcox — Back to condition "c ". We did revise the phasing, didn't we? Ms. Balestra — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — We changed phase II is what we did, which has an impact on the lots in phase III. Attorney Barney — "c" is ... we are going to change it to include the accurate construction phasing and I think you probably want to be a little more specific and show the revised W, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED sheet 1 to precisely show Phase I as approved and then the proposed phasing information for the remainder of the subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — When the plat is presented for my signature, what lots should be on that plat? Attorney Barney — The ones that we just approved. All of the lots will be on the plat, but it should be marked that your approval is for lots 1 -5, 23 and 24 .and this language coming out. Chris will see that its taken care of or Jonathan... Ms. Balestra — Or all four of us. Chairperson Wilcox — Does "d need to be revised? Mr. Walker — Actually I think completion of the water and sewer improvements, which is our normal requirements... Chairperson Wilcox — We're on "e". Mr. Walker — What I'm saying is we don't need "e" because we can't do 'T' unless we have "e". In other words we can't start building these things until we have the approval from the Health Department, the plans have been submitted and they are in the review process now. Attorney Barney — The question is, can we issue a building permit here prior to the Tompkins County Health Department approval? Mr. Walker — Well, you can't issue a building permit without the systems being constructed, well, then we've modified that in the conditions. Yeah, leave it in. Attorney Barney — I would delete and l would have a whole new 'T' which would read no building permits shall be issued prior to completion of water and sewer infrastructure to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer provided however up to two building permits may be issued prior to the completion of such water and sewer construction if "a" the developer has in place a contract or other commitment satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, Director of Planning and Attorney for the Town for the construction of all water and sewer improvements, "b" bond or other financial security satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, Director of Planning and Attorney for the Town in the amount equal to 125% of the reasonable estimate for the costs of such completion as estimated by the Director of Engineering as provided by the developer prior to the issuance of any such permits, and "c" under no circumstances will any. Certificate of Occupancy be issued until such improvements are complete. Chairperson Wilcox — Moving on. Thank you, John. "g "? Okay. We have to modify it...(inaudible) ... as well as the dry maintenance swale. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Ms. Balestra — Well there is a provision in the restrictive covenants for the dry swale maintenance. Chairperson Wilcox — But the way that it is currently written it expires after 25 years. That's the issue. Ms. Ritter — The sidewalks need to stay, also. Chairperson Wilcox — The sidewalks need to stay forever and the swale maintenance needs to stay forever. Ms. Ritter — I think that needs to be its own revision. Attorney Barney — It ought to be a revision to revise the restrictive covenants satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Attorney for the Town to include a provision stating homeowners are responsible for maintaining or repairing all drainage facilities on their respective parcels and all sidewalks running ... (inaudible) ... prior to the issuance of any building permits. Are you with us? Chairperson Wilcox — Don't you want to review the final restrictive covenants? Attorney Barney — That's why I said it has to be satisfactory to John and me or his delegate. Chairperson Wilcox — I just heard Jon in there. Attorney Barney — I have Director of Planning and Attorney for the Town to improve provisions and so forth. Chairperson Wilcox — "h" revised planting plan to show a replacement of every spruce with a non - invasive species and replacement of the dogwood. Attorney Barney — Are any of them on the Phase I lots? Mr. Albern — Yes. Attorney Barney — Then we would want that. Chairperson Wilcox — Replacement of dogwood with other acceptable species. 111 is okay? Do I have a consensus? Attorney Barney — Yeah, the only thing...maybe we want to build in the tree maintenance. The Deputy Town Attorney over here on my right is giving me all kinds of clues here and probably back in "g" we want to build that into submission of revised restrictive covenants to include maintaining and repairing drainage facilities, sidewalks fronting on their lots, and trees prior to the issuance of any building permits. 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — By trees you mean tree conservation? Attorney Barney — Yeah. The tree conservation. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Attorney Barney — Now, "j" really would 'be applicable to Phase II so I think "j" can come out. Chairperson Wilcox — Bill, this is why we like to know about these before hand so we don't sit here and ... thank you. Attorney Barney — The only thing is submission of deed, easements or other agreements satisfactory... or other k agreements for access and maintenance... for approval by the Town Engineer... I'm not sure we want to do deed easements. I'm thinking there may be another way to do this that is less ... one master agreement that basically... Chairperson Wilcox — Between the... Attorney Barney — The developer and the Town prior to any deeds, which makes the entire subdivision subject to these requirements. Chairperson Wilcox — Therefore goes with each lot. Attorney Barney — Exactly. We have to mechanically work that out and I'm not quite sure the best way to do that. So "k" becomes 'T' to keep the lettering and "I" becomes "k" and Carrie is going to figure this all out. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, are those changes acceptable? Board Member Thayer — I guess so. Board Member Talty — Yep. Chairperson Wilcox — John, how comfortable do you feel from a legal perspective that we covered all our bases as we sat here and wrote this? Attorney Barney — Quite frankly we have a little bit of ... I don't want to use the word leverage, but that's really what it is. You've gotta come back and get approval now for 20 or so more lots and if there is something that we missed this time around we will pick it up the next time around. Mr. Albern — Thank you. 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — So John, you're all set. Dan, you're all set? Mr. Walker — Yep. Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I have a concern about the park now that maybe there is a possibility that the Town cannot use the Compton Park land for park and that we were alerted to tonight. I thought that the idea about putting this development parkland in that corner was that the two parcels could be connected into a bigger park. I would have preferred to see the park more in the center of this development as I said much earlier. Attorney Barney — Does this adjoin the Compton...? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Balestra — This is Compton Park and this would be the proposed West View Park, Board Member Talty — And which property is the gentleman trying to reacquire? Board Member Thayer — The yellow. Ms. Balestra — The yellow part. His home is I guess approximately around here. Board Member Hoffmann — Anyway this as concerns me because we had thought all along that these two parcels could be used a larger piece of parkland. Attorney Barney — And I'm not sure there's any reason that still isn't the case. Obviously the information that we got tonight is news to me as much as it is to you. I suppose we could impose a condition relative to this one that if it turns out, after we do some investigation over the next several weeks that the Compton Park land or at least the Compton parcel is some how not available to the Town that the developer will redesign the subdivision to put the parkland in the middle. Chairperson Wilcox — Which would still be possible given that we have only given approval for seven lots. Board Member Talty — I would not be in favor of that because I understand that we've gone along the whole way, but it is really out of their control and I don't feel as though that is fair to this party at that point. I think they've worked with us and we've worked with them and I understand your concern, Eva, but it's not this particular applicant reneging on their deal. They are being affected by that deal, but I just don't feel as though that is a right move by this board. That's my feeling. 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and I understand your reason, but I think the people who live in this development would be better served, I thought so from the beginning, by having a park more centrally located. Board Member Talty — That is true, but we've also put concerns on them like they come to have storm drains and sidewalks on both sides. There is no question that their profit margin has decreased because of those changes that we mandated and if you take out 11 29 31 4 lots it might not be a profitable venture and might can the whole thing. So I just don't feel as though that because of what the other gentleman said here tonight just don't think I am in favor of changing that plan at that late date. Board Member Thayer — This will all be in Phase II any way. So we can make the change at that point. Chairperson Wilcox — Defer it... Board Member Thayer — By then we will know if Compton Park is... Board Member Conneman — ...investigate what the issue is on Compton Park. Board Member Tatty — That's true, but they've already started on the road and when they finish Phase I and they come back for Phase II and say that gentleman acquires that piece of property from the Town it may not be feasible for them to continue on Phase II if we drop a park in the middle of Phase II or Phase III. 1 just...that's my personal opinion is that they've worked with us; we've worked with them. They're going down the road and they're committing a lot money and a lot of time and effort and for us to change the plan, I don't think is right. Board Member Hoffmann — I also think that we don't usually talk about profit margins here. That's not our concern really, but I think that all the lots in this development might be more desirable with a park in a better place. Okay. I just wanted to register that point. Mr. Walker — Just a statement on what we would expect to construct as a park in that area because it is a neighborhood park. It was probably be a relatively small play structure similar to what we put up in lacovelli Park area. It probably more of a nature area just because of the nature of that land it is a fairly wet area, especially the yellow lot. I think to serve the neighbors of 30dot subdivision it is basically going to be a play structure, picnic space and things like that. I think that would fit into the 1.2 acres that's here and probably what we would do with the Compton Park area would be something similar to what we are doing out at Tutelo Park. That is keeping it more of a natural area. They are looking at that up at Woolf Lane also. Very similar land forms, wetness conditions and it would be a similar sized development with same number of houses, 20 -25 houses, is a small play structure where people could go but tying into a path and walking trails and things like that. I'm thinking that the gentleman's concern about what would happen with that I think he's afraid probably it will be turned into a ball field or PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED something, but we would not be developing it to that level in that area because it is a neighborhood park not a Townwide park. I think for the Town's use of that as a park I think it can be very functional even with just the 1.2 acres especially with the paths and right -of -ways that they put across the inside lots. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? The board voted on the motion; it passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -082: Final Subdivision Approval, Westview 32 -Lot Subdivision, Schicke/ Road, Danbv Road, Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3.2 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Tally. WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 32 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schicke/ Road and NYS Route 96B (Danbv Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Low Density Residence District. The proposal includes extending Schicke/ Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots and one 1Y2 +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albern, Agent, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, on May 4, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on August 17, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey plat entitled "Final Subdivision Map, Westview Subdivision, Located on Danby Road /Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., T.G. Miller, P. C., dated June 22, 2004; subdivision plans including sheets 1 through 7 entitled "Final Plat - Westview Subdivision" prepared by William F. Albern, P.E. Engineering Consultant, dated June 18, 2004, sheet RWD1 entitled "Westview Plan, Walks, Roads, and Drainage," sheet RWD2 entitled "Westview Profiles, Sections & Details, "sheet RWD3 entitled "Westview Grassed Stormwater Swale Details," sheet SEC 1, entitled "Westview Plan, Sediment & Erosion Control, "and sheet SEC2 entitled "Westview Standard Details," prepared by Philip Erik Whitney, P.E., dated July, 2004, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED 10 That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for Phase I of the proposed Westview 324ot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -2- 3.2, which subdivision is shown on the survey plat entitled "Final Subdivision Map - Westview Subdivision, Located on Danby Road /Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York'; Phase I consisting of Lots 1 through 5, 23 & 24, and associated road, utilities, infrastructure and road turn - around subject to the following conditions:. a. Modification of the subdivision plat to show a temporary hammerhead turn - around satisfactory to the Director of Engineering and Town Highway Superintendent on Lot 6, b. Submission of a revised survey plat to include references to the restrictive covenants and all tree preservation guidelines which directly affect the land in the subdivision and to rename "Schickel Road Extension" to "Schickel Road, "prior to the issuance of any building permits, C, Submission of a revised Sheet 1, "General Arrangement," to show precisely the Phase I as approved and also to include the accurate construction phasing information for the remainder of the subdivision as indicated on the letter from the applicant to the Planning Board, dated July 28, 2004, prior to the issuance of any building permits, d. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or rnylar copy of the revised survey plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits, e. Submission of a copy of the water supply and sewage system permits by the Tompkins County Health Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits, f. No building permits shall be issued prior to completion of water and sewer infrastructure except that up to two building permits may be issued prior to completion of such water and sewer infrastructure if, i) Developer has in place a contract or commitment satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, Director of Planning and Attorney for the Town for construction of all water and sewer improvements, ii) A bond or other financial security satisfactory to Director of Engineering, Director of Planning and Attorney for the Town in an amount equal to 125% of the reasonable estimate for the costs of such completion, as estimated by the Director of Engineering, is W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED provided by the Developer prior to the issuance of any such permits, Under no circumstances .shall any Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until such improvements are completed, g. Submission of revised restrictive covenants satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Attorney for the Town to include a provision stating that homeowners will be responsible for maintaining and repairing all drainage facilities on their respective land and all sidewalks fronting on their lots, as per Article 11 of the Town of Ithaca Streets and Sidewalks Law, adopted 8124192, prior to the issuance of any building permits, h. Submission of a revised planting list showing the replacement of the Norway Spruce with a non - invasive tree species of a similar nature, prior to the issuance.of any building permits, i. Submission of individual property deeds for each lot in the subdivision, including the language regarding sidewalk, drainage swale maintenance, and tree maintenance for review by the Town Planning Department, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for each lot, j. Submission of deed easements or other agreement for access and maintenance by the Town of Ithaca to all stormwater management facilities and swales on individual lots for review and approval by the Town Engineer and the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, k, the applicant shall preserve as much existing vegetation on the site as is possible during construction, and shall re- vegetate areas of disturbance in a manner that does not impede the function of the drainage and stormwater runoff swales on all parcels. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this section of the meeting at 8:27 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Arthropod Facility located off Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -2, Planned Development Zone No. 9. The project involves construction of a +/- 3,600 square foot one story arthropod 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED research building containing laboratories, rearing rooms, greenhouses, and support space. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Jeffrey Lallas, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this section of the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I will let the public know that this item is not subject to New York State Environmental Quality Review. It is a type II action, as I like to say, legislatively determined not to have an environmental impact, hence there's no State environmental quality review. I'm sure we will do some sort of environmental review as part of our preliminary site plan process. Chairperson Wilcox invited the applicant to address the board. Jeffrey Lallas, Cornell University Jeff Lallas, I live at ... Drive, Ithaca NY. Ann Hajek, 205 Salem Dr. Ann Hajek, I'm at 205 Salem Drive, Ithaca NY. Mr. Lallas — I am the project manager for the College of Ag and Markets Science for Cornell University. With me tonight is Professor Ann Hajek, who is a professor of entomology for the College of Ag and Market Sciences. We are here to talk about the new building that we would like to put up off of Game Farm Road. I'm sure you got a large packet there. In case you haven't had a chance to go through it all, I'm going to run through the project very quickly. First I'll talk about the site. Here of course are the two gorges. The University is right here, just to orient ourselves for a minute. We are going to be looking at this area here, which is close to 366.r So as we move along here, this is 366, up here Game Farm Road. You come down and you turn right in the Research Complex that is right off of Game Farm Road right off Pleasant Farm. Just a little ways you will find this, actually it is the College of Ag and ... Science Research area. There are already main buildings there and we are proposing our new building to go right here in this general area between the Agricultural Waste Management Facility and the A -barn. We have two barns that are pretty much identical. If you have been out to the site, I have marked a tree that is out on the site next to the Agricultural Waste Facility. So this is where we decided is a really good spot for us to put this program. It's convenient enough to campus and yet a little isolated so we are not going to get more traffic than we...it's a very quiet location. The building is a very small building. These renderings are a little outdated. These are renderings from the architect that are several months old at this point, but they give you a good sense of what we are talking about. So I thought I would use it if you would allow some leeway here. This lower print here is showing this building, the Agricultural Waste Facility, which is that one right there. This one over here is the A -barn building. And we are proposing that the building sit right here. This is our building. 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED There's a swale that goes in between these two existing buildings and we've decided to put the new building on the west side of that swale on the ease side of the Ag Waste Facility. We've had some real advantages in part because we could take advantage of the existing parking. This is parking that is already out there. The Agricultural Waste Facility is not heavily used. The kind of research that they do does not require a lot of parking. There is parking for easily six cars. There is never more than one, maybe there's a couple of cars out there but the kind of research that's being done doesn't demand a lot of circulation. Likewise, our new facility is not going to be heavily used so the warranty vehicles that we expect to be out there on a regular will have no trouble sharing this parking with the Agricultural Waste Facility. Similar features of the site, down woods, I think most people are familiar with that site. The building is going to stay well out of that buffer, the 75 -foot buffer. I should mention that the SLUD, this building is being put into a Special Land Use District, Chairperson Wilcox — Now called Planned Development Zones, Mr. Lallas — We are meeting all the requirements with our facility with the site with the setbacks and everything else. So it seems to work out very well for us in this location. Additionally, we have the utilities that we need; we have our gas, water and sewer, everything that we use is already out there. The building itself is about a 3500 square foot facility. This picture, if you can imagine standing at this corning looking in this direction this is what you would see. So right here you see the Agricultural Waste Management Facility, that's this building right over here. And what is not in this picture, but you can see over here is the Trickily barn, which is this building over here. If everybody has a sense of where we are, we are kind of looking at the back of the building. You'd be approaching, when you come down the road, you'd be approaching down this road over here. So you are now looking at the emergency exit over here on the side and in back it is showing you the.. that's a modest facility. There will be a couple of labs. There will be a couple of growth changes, office and of course what you would normally call a greenhouse but in this case because it is a quarantine facility it is actually a ... (not audible). Board Member Hoffmann — I missed what you were saying. It's actually a what? Mr. Lallas — A sealed room. A greenhouse actually breathes to some extent. In this case we don't want it to. It's actually going to be completely enclosed. So it does look like a greenhouse, but it is more in fact like a sunroom. So that's what we're calling it. It is on the north side of the building and it is a little...with a gable roof. The side over there will not have hardware on it. It is just an emergency exit. There is an overhang and there is a small pad. There was a discrepancy in the documents of about 20 square feet. It turns out that we added in this pad twice and that is where that 28 feet came from. On the far side and I think if you have your floor plans you will notice the main entrance would ... (not audible) ... on the side of the parking lot. 33 There will be down lights at anybody is interested in that. We've to be using for this new facility. We on the lower section. You can kind Then there will be ground face block green for the doors and I think that is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - .APPROVED the main entrance. I have some cut - sheets if also brought some of the materials that we intend are going to be using a split block faced block here of tell the tone that the architects are trying to do. for the upper areas. Right now they have picked a in your packet as well. Just a quick rundown of what the building looks like. The immediate environs around the building as well as the actual design of the building and the interior are very clearly defined by USDA. There's a subdivision of that group that is called AFIS. They are the ones who are responsible for identifying the details of how the building is built. One aspect of the AFIS requirement is that there is no vegetation, no trees or shrubs or vegetation like that outside the building. So immediately outside the building there will be probably a three -foot sterling drip area and then about 15 feet extended from the building itself, another 12 feet passed that. There will probably be a grass area, but it can't have any landscaping other than that in that area. Again, it is one of the requirements that the USDA provides for us. The site disturbance is very small. As you know, we didn't have to do an analysis, but we did provide the drainage analysis as well as the study that was done by the theological associates. We are not going to be disturbing any of the wetland, which is the little culver that was created there several years ago, that is basically a drainage ditch that has turned into a wetland. So we've carefully placed the building so that it was well out of reach of the plant material that might be ... that we have to protect. In terms of the mechanicals in the building, there is going to be a small vx unit. It's going to be an emergency generator. There will be an emergency generator as well as a small cooling unit that will sit outside. Inside there will be 100 percent outside air, air handler. You are probably familiar with this from other research facilities, but all the air that comes in gets evacuated. There is no return air within the building. There will be an autoclave... there will be some various equipment, modest equipment inside, but everything has to be filtered. So the air handlers have to have a filter on them to make sure insects that won't become air born. All the equipment has to be filtered. So the drains on the floor, the drains in any sinks, the drains anywhere have to have a fine mesh. Just like air handlers, when the air comes in it gets filtered but it also gets filtered as it leaves the building to make sure that no insect that might possibly get out of the cages inside the facility have no way of entering the air stream and going outside into the public. Although, there is aggressive equipment inside, there are many safeguards to protect and maintain the insects inside ,the building. That in fact has been the primary purpose of AFIS in particular and our design. Our design intent has been how do you design a building that is going to guarantee that the insects will stay in the facility and that's one reason why we have someone from USDA on our design team right now who is guiding us along this whole process. In part that was protection for us because we 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED didn't want to be half way or all the way through the project and not have a project that they would accept. So AFIS has the responsibility at the completion of the construction of certifying this facility to make sure that it meets USDA standards. Only then, and of course the Town has to approve it with a regular approval permit, but AFIS has to approve it before we can consider using it for research. After they have approved the building, then professors like Professor Hajek can request insects to be used for research. And at this point, I think I will turn it over to Dr Hajek and ask her to talk a little bit about the program, talk about some of the safeguards and some of procedures that are customarily done and used in current quarantine facilities. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to ask you one question before you leave. You mentioned that the drawings of the building are old. Was there an indication in the... Mr. Lallas — Just the sketch. I mentioned that because I thought it was a nice color sketch that we used initially and it showed the swale and the location of these buildings. That was the only reason for bringing this here. The drawings that you have are the current drawings. Everything in your packet is the current information. This was just a visual aid. As I mentioned I was hesitant to bring it just because I didn't want to confuse... just as an example ... this has changed in location to give it a little more room away from the swale. There may be minor changes, but I didn't want you to sort of get fixated on that. Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to know that what we had gotten is how it is going to be. Mr. Lallas — Yes it is. Chairperson Wilcox — How refreshing. Ms. Hajek — So, just to introduce myself I work on biological control. I teach undergraduate and graduate classes at Cornell in biological control and I work in kind of a sub - discipline of biological control called invertebrate pathology for a lot of my own research. I have worked in these kinds of facilities before and that is how I became involved with this facility. So the emphasis in this facility is going to be on non - chemical methods for controlling arthropod pests and weeds. That is the emphasis of why we are building this facility. A lot is going to be focuses on invasive species. I'm sure a lot of you know a lot of the invasive species which seems to be more and more all the time so arthropod pests that are invasive species that are unlikely to be worked on there would Asian longhorn beetle, emerald ash fore (a new threat that is even in New York yet, but will get here soon), hemlock williadeltum, hibernum leaf beetle (you might have dead herbariums in your yard), so soybean aphid, weeds, garlic mustard, its all around my house now; swallowort, Japanese knotweed, anyways there is a lot of invasive species. One of the very best ways to control them is biological control.. .but what we are trying to focus on is non - chemical, not synthetic chemical pesticides, alternatives. In order to work on this biological control, you have to have a facility like this arthropod research facility. 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED So, just so you know, this type of biological control has been very successful with invasive species in the past. Some examples from the US, alp alpha leaf Bloch, leaf minor, you might not know these because once they are controlled you don't hear about them very much. Alp alpha Bloch leaf minor, alp alpha weevil, ash wyfly in California. There are a lot of successes in weeds to purple loof strife. There's been a big program that purple loof strife around here. Klamath weed in the west, Sylvania... anyway so it's a successful thing to do. Now this arthropod research facility, USDA AFIS regulates these facilities. Calls them quarantines and what that means is a structure that provides a secure environment in which the behavior and biology of arthropods to be used for biological control can be studied. So that any you would be using for biological control in the field you would know that they would be effective and safe. That is the emphasis on why we need the facility. There's, just as Jeff said, there are really detailed AFIS regulation of this facility. We have very detailed... specifications that we have to satisfy in order to have this facility certified.' There are...why do we need this kind of facility? There actually is one on campus already. It has been operating for 12 years. It's certified by USDA AFIS. Its only 362 square feet. So usually there can only be one project in there at a time and it is owned by USDS ARS. If they were mandated to work on a certain pest, well they'd have to take over that quarantine, which right now is occupied by me with my Asian longhorn beetle project. I have been in there for five years. There are at least a dozen other professors on campus that would potentially use this larger facility. They aren't doing those kinds of projects right now because there's no facility for them to work in. So this invasive species question, we haven't been able to address. Things like Hibernia leaf beetle because we didn't have the facility in order to deal with it. There are numerous quarantine facilities worldwide and in the United States. I don't know of escapes from any of them. Like I said, they are very highly regulated by AFIS. There's detailed building design and rules for using them and we follow them explicitly. Other quarantines I've worked in, facilities like this I've worked in the rules are followed explicitly. No anthropologist wants to introduce problems. Once a facility like this is running, there are unannounced inspections by USDA AFIS to make sure you are following all of the rules and AFIS is very, very strict with what pests, what beneficial organisms they let you work on in these facilities. So you can't just work on anything by a long shot. They are very strict. This facility that we're building, few people will have access to it. There will only be a few projects at a time and of course that is determined by AFIS. They would only let us work on projects that they would feel this was the correct place for this project, this project needed to be worked on here. There's few people that will have access will have access and anybody that enters the quarantine itself will have to be trained, specifically trained on using the quarantine. Within the quarantine within the facility, all of the organisms will be in cages, in growth chambers in incubators. Nothing is going to be flying around. In the greenhouses themselves, we will be growing plants because 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED you have to have plants, but those plants will actually be fed to any organisms within cages within incubators so not just out in the greenhouse. I wanted to run through what some of the security of the facility. When you are entering the facility, when you are coming up to the facility there won't be any signs or anything announcing this is that kind of arthropod research facility, no big signs. The area around the building will be clear, like Jeff said, that's mandated by AFIS. There will be some kind of keypad entry so it will be a secure entry and there won't be a lot of keys. It will be a limited number of keys. When you enter, you will enter into a small office. There will be a ledger and you will write down what everyone does in the building when they are there that day will be entered into the logbook. That is also mandated by AFIS. They'll sign in and then you're not actually in the quarantine part of the facility. Then you'll have to...there'II be another kind of keypad and some kind of secure entry that you'll go. ..in order to go into the quarantine. But first you won't actually be in the quarantine, you'll go into an airlock that's all dark and has yellow sticky trap so that any flying insects that are attracted to yellow will be caught on that sticky substance on a piece of paper and there is also a uv light in the dark and the insects would be attracted to that. So there are these ... you close the door. Once you are in this dark, small anti - chamber airlock you can only open the next door, which actually takes you into the quarantine once that first door has clicked all the way locked. So it is actually an airlock. So you'll then open the second door to go into the quarantine. You'll put on either a tyvek suit a or lab coat and then do your work. When you leave at the end of working there, you'll also ... well first of all, there is a mirror and check yourself all over with the mirror to make sure that there is no kind of insects on the outside of your tyvek suit. Then you'll leave the quarantine. Now, you can't take anything with you when you are leaving. Things only go one way going into the quarantine and then they basically stay there. The only things that go out are things that have gone through the steam sterilizer. They have been ... we call it autoclave. They have been autoclaved. Then those can actually go out with you. So basically, nothing leaves unless it has been autoclaved. Okay. So I just wanted to say that at Cornell we pride ourselves in trying to really work on biological control that is safe to the environment and I think that that would definitely follow through with our use of this arthropod research facility. Chairperson Wilcox — I sense your excitement of bugs. Ms. Hajek — I'm fascinated with insects. Chairperson Wilcox — God bless you. All right, Kevin? Board Member Talty — Are there any species that are hazardous to humans that are being stored in this location? Ms. Hajek — We will only be able to work on things that are mandated by AFIS. We are not working on any insects that carry ... pathogens. That is not the intent of this at all. In 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED fact, if we were going to work on something like that we would have to go to Ft. Dietrich and work at a different level of quarantine. This is an arthropod quarantine. So that's a different kind of quarantine that you are talking about. Board Member Talty — Good. Ms. Hajek — I don't want to work in those either. Board Member Hoffmann — Our Environmental Review Committee had some comments about this and they were wondering how will insects that you are finished with and plants, plant materials and I would like to add tyvek suits and lab coats and other things like that.. how will they be handled after you are through with them? Ms. Hajek — Well, the tyvek suits and lab suits stay in the quarantine and they actually get steamed sterilized and they stay there. They don't leave. That is something.that you put on when you go in. Some quarantines actually have cubbyholes or lockers with people's name and actually I think places either have a washing machine in the facility or just use the steam sterilizer to clean the apparel. As for all the other things, all the plants, all the plant material, all 'of the insects, everything gets autoclaved before it would be taken out. Board Member Hoffmann — And where is it taken after it leaves the building? Ms. Hajek — Well, I should add that this is all...it all depends on AFIS's rules. So with most types of or most kinds of organisms it would then go in the dumpster. Everything in it is dead. But with my Asian longhorn beetle colony, AFIS and NYS AG and Markets with the NYS part of it, there is actually always a partnership with the State. They have required that we destroy the wood that we use for rearing the very young Asian longhorn beetles before we remove them and put them into artificial diet. We have to either completely chip the wood or we have to incinerate it and so that's what we do. I couldn't have my permit to work with Asian longhorn beetle unless we did that so we do. So its... I can tell you ... but it's going to depend on the insect. Board Member Hoffmann — If I can follow up understand if something were to go wrong you or specialists, but is there some backup plan i call in local experts on campus to help you situation where perhaps an insect escaped disgruntled student decided to let loose on this with some would call where you and give accidentcr material. more in thes would advice illy or questions about that. I e national organizations be able to more quickly on how to handle the maybe purposely if a Ms. Hajek — Well, I could address that about the student. Right now the quarantine that I work in we have a rule that no students can work in there unsupervised. So you can't just give an undergrad a job working there on the weekends. So it is only kind of full time long -term employees that have access to the quarantine facility. So on my rule, follow what AFIS tells me to do and my rule for my colony right now with AFIS is we're supposed to call them first if there is any worries about an escape. They are available. KEOO PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED They are very available and who would I contact on campus that's a good question because I'm kind of one of the experts. So there is not a whole lot of.. its kind of a pest control issue. Board Member Hoffmann — I understand that you are the expert on the insects, but other people might be experts on the plant materials that perhaps could be affected by the insects if they were on the loose or animals that could be affected by these insects if they were out there. There must be people who know related things that could come in and help in an emergency situation maybe more quickly than these other experts that are helping you. Mr. Lallas — We are quite lucky here. As you know, there are tremendous resources at Cornell University and a number of people have been brought in on the standard operating procedures once those are identified. So any number of people that can be drawn in to help out in those situations, but I think one of things when we were talking initially when we started this project ... one of the things that came up was what happens in the event of an escape and one of the other professors said an escape I can't even imagine an how it would happen. First there is the cages and then after the cages there is a hierarchy of safety and security that's really phenomenal of what they do and again this is a low level quarantine, but even so, there are so many tiers of security along the way that's why they have had no releases in these quarantine facilities. I mean the first thing that you want to do is have a good plan, a good operating procedure so that you don't have an escape and the University here has any number of resources to draw in case there is a problem. Additionally as Dr. Hajek is saying, these AFIS requirements are so strict if they thought an insect, as I understand, but if they thought an insect would aggressively move into one of the environments here they wouldn't let us use that insect or let us research that insect here. They would send it to South Caroline or the Arizona quarantine. So they try to pick environments that are not condusive to their ... for them to live if they were to get out. And there are also a number of things that would happen for them to get out You would have to have, well if it's a male, you don't have to worry...) mean there are a number of things just in terms of the statistics that are in your favor. So if something were to get out, we would have to have a male and a female if they were actually going to go out and continue to do damage. You have to imagine the scenarios that would create a hazardous situation that they would continue to multiply and create a problem in the area. AFIS is very careful besides the University taking care and the professor's taking care. AFIS is watching and they are thinking of various ways of safe guarding the community from an insect getting out and causing some trouble. Board Member Hoffmann — I understand all of what you are saying and I agree, but I think we all also know of things that we never thought would ever happen have happened, catastrophic things that have happened, you can think of several I am sure. I don't want to bring them up. So that is why I was wondering if maybe there was a backup system involving local people that you could line up ahead of time and call very quickly before these other people could get here and help you out. 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Ms. Hajek — Well, I think that there will be definitely numerous people that are in charge of working in the quarantine. There could be an accord of people to be contacted, however, I must say that I think at the same time or even first I would place the phone call to AFIS because I don't want them to revoke our permits or to say we can't use our facility and they have that ability and they could shut us down real quick and then we have a building out there that we can't use and we can't ... so I really am.. they are very, very strict and I do what they say. Board Member Hoffmann — I understand. I would, too. That was what I wanted to ask. Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? We talked about access restriction, we talked about keypad. I wonder what would happen if a researcher completed a project, the insects and potentially the plant material are removed. Is that researcher then prohibited from entering the facility because the research is done and if so, how would they do that? Here's what I'm getting at. You are not the only person who is going to use this facility. Ms. Hajek —Of course. Chairperson Wilcox — Other researchers will have access to it and use it and they may be visiting professors, potentially, they may be Ithaca College professors, whatever, but when their research is done and they no longer need to access that building, no longer have the need to be in that building, then I would hope that their access would be removed because it is important to restrict the number of people who enter that building and leave that building. For nothing else, you know who's there. You know who's going in. If something happens, you have a much smaller circle of people to deal with in terms of what went wrong. So how do you deal with that sort of issue? How do you lock people out once they are done? Ms. Hajek — A facility like this that I have worked on in Connecticut and we haven't had to deal with this so it's a good point. We haven't had to deal with this before, however, working at this forest service facility they have one main quarantine officer and that person hands out the keypad number for you at the beginning of the day and then that's it for that day. So if you didn't have a project that you were working on or a reason to be in quarantine, you wouldn't really be allowed in. This is definitely not the kind of place that tours of people are going to go in or even visiting professors, unless they have a project that they are working on in there. Chairperson Wilcox — They change the keypad number everyday? Ms. Hajek — I think for individuals, not the main people who are working there everyday. But when I found they are visiting it got changed. Board Member Talty — I was just going to add that the security systems have become very sophisticated. It's not just a matter of changing the combination, which is easy to do, but you can download and include people or exclude people very easily now. For all PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED $1000 to $1200 you can get all sorts of ... you just bring a pc with you and you can change that combination and that person gets excluded with that update and you can monitor who's coming when and at least who's got the card. Chairperson Wilcox — How many facilities similar to this are there in the United States? Ms. Hajek — I read in a review paper recently, I'd say 28. That's maybe a paper that was out in 1999. There's one in Pennsylvania. Chairperson Wilcox — The point is there's 28 and they've figured out what works and what doesn't work and now they are going to build the 29th or the 30tH Ms. Hajek — And that's only in the United States. These are worldwide, too. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm all set. I don't have any other questions at this point. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:07 p.m., and invited the public to address the board. With no persons present to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox — Having a doctor come in here makes me feel better. We all set? Board Member Conneman moved the motion and Board Member Hoffmann seconded the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — Any proposed changes? Attorney Barney — I would "s" after condition in paragraph two. The board accepted the change. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -083: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell University Arthropod Facility, Game Farm Road, Tax Parcel No. 64 =1 =2 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Arthropod Facility located off Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -2, Planned Development Zone No.9. The project involves construction of a +/- 3,600 square foot one story arthropod research building containing laboratories, rearing rooms, greenhouses, and support space. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Jeffrey Lallas, Agent, and 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED 2. This is a Type II Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, State Environmental Duality Review Act (SEORA), requiring no further environmental review. 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 17, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Utility Plan" (0338- CO10), "Site Details, Grading and Drainage" (0338- C011), "Exterior Elevations" (0338 -A201) dated 05112104, prepared by EGNER Architectural Associated, LLC., and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Arthropod Facility located off Game Farm Road, Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -2, as shown on drawings titled "Utility Plan" (0338-CO 10), "Site Details, Grading and Drainage" (0338- C011), "Exterior Elevations" (0338 -A201) dated 05112104, prepared by EGNER Architectural Associated, LLC., subject to the following conditions: a. submission of a that supplemen implemented as new impervious "apron"; prior to revised site plan that includes engineering notes stating tal erosion and sedimentation control measures will be needed on the site, and revision to the notes concerning cover to replace the word concrete "walk" with concrete the issuance of a building permit, and b. submission of an original final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and C, submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox closed this section at 9:10 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located on the northeast corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 63 =1 -2.2 and 67 -1 0010.3, Low Density Residential Zone. Phase I of the proposal involves construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot multi -story building, with a possible Phase II 4 -story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching, and will be directly connected to the College of Veterinary Medicine. The project will require demolition of the existing one -story building that currently occupies thee proposed site. Cornell University, Owner; John M. Keefe, Applicant/Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:11 p.m. John Keefe, Cornell University I am the project manager for the East Campus Research Facility at Cornell University. Tonight I will be assisted by Doctor Rob Gilbert, who is a veterinary medical doctor and the Associate Dean for the College of Veterinarian Medicine. Tonight we will present the sketch plan review for the East Campus Research Facility. Dr Gilbert will begin by giving you a brief description of the project and the purpose and the need of it and then it will come back to me and I'll get the nuts and bolts and the mortar of it. Rob Gilbert, Cornell University Thank you, John and good evening. It is a pleasure to be here this evening. For us this is a very exciting project with the rapid growth in the volumes and the importance and sophistication of biological research and teaching we find that our current animal housing facilities, many of which are 30 or more years old, are beginning to show their age. Further more, they are dotted around the campus in an inefficient configuration. This project will also us to provide consolidated state of the art facilities and continue to maintain the highest levels of animal care. It has the further advantage of bringing scientists together from various departments and colleges in a way that will facilitate collaboration. The building that we propose, which we will call the East Campus Research Facility, will provide state of the art housing for research and teaching animals. The building has been designed specifically to be flexible to allow the accommodation of animals of a variety of species. In most cases, this represents consolidation and modernization of the housing facilities. But we do anticipate an increase in the number of mice used in research. The availability of the complete mouse geno sequence and its similarity to the human geno have made the mouse an extremely valuable and powerful model for biomedical research. So the proposed building will constitute a component of the college of Veterinarian Medicine Campus. In planning for it, we have asked our architects to consider the potential for future expansion. At present, however, we are not proposing 43 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED a second phase and any decision to proceed would be based on the future research and teaching requirements and the availability of funds at that time. So, John will give you some more details of the building you are considering. Mr. Keefe — Okay. I'll start off by showing you The Cornell University map with north being i central campus over here, Schoellkopf Stadium, Tower Road is right there and right there is proposing is basically on the Northeast corner of of Vet Medical Center Complex. where we ip towards Route 366 Campus F Tower and are proposing this building. the ceiling. You can see running up in this direction, load. So the site we are Campus Road in the center We spent many months going over various areas and sites within the University to plan this facility. A lot of the criteria that we looked at, we had to make sure that the program would fit within the area and it would go with the buildings and the surrounding area. We looked for the potential of sharing programs, as Doctor Gilbert alluded to earlier, sharing programs between the College of AG and Life Science to College of Veterinary Medicine, the College of Arts and Sciences for instance. Proximity to faculty was also important. Proximity to the researchers that would be using the facility. Service to the parking access, we needed to make sure there was both parking available in the area and the area could be serviced through a truck area. Potential for expansion, as Doctor Gilbert mentioned, currently we would like to someday expand the facility so we had to have room to perform that. And finally, of course the technical criteria, underground utilities, adequate steam, ...chilled water and the like. The top picture basically shows you a plan view looking from the corner of Tower and Campus Road and the bottom one gives you an aerial view. As you can see from the aerial view, this is the lab animal service building. That building will be demolished to make room for the East Campus Research Facility. In the plan view, you really can't get a good look at that one story building and on east campus this new proposed facility will have a more dramatic impact. This shows you the basic site plan or site footprint of the building. You can also refer to the model we have up there to get a better idea of it. The dark line here is the existing lab animal services building, just to give you an idea of sizes and adjust the position and the dotted line at the bottom is the potential future expansion. The building is four stories. Three stories dedicated to research and animal housing and the top story being entirely a mechanical penthouse. This is the west elevation. This is as if you were on Tower Road looking at the building. You can see the veterinary research tower here. The building is going to be composed mostly of brick, sort of an earth tone brick. We really haven't decided on a color at this time. It is going to have to match the facades of both the veterinary research tower as well as the veterinary medical center. The.. 'along here is basically the corridors and that is going to be a u- shaped channel glass. This is the south elevation. The south elevation shows you about how high it will be compared to the tower. It is 69 feet. It is composed on this elevation.. .(not audible). ..I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED The east elevation, this is what you would see if you were basically at the loading dock area in between the veterinary medical center and the proposed facility. The dotted line there indicates what it would be like if we did the potential future expansion. The timetable we are looking at doing is we should be back here with the preliminary site plan review sometime in the fall. Followed a few months later with the final site plan review. We would hope to begin construction in the summer of 2005, anticipating 24 to 26 months construction period. Phase 11, as we stated earlier, is a potential future expansion. That decision would be based upon the researchers needs and funding available if we should ever go forward with that. Obviously, we are going to follow the SEQR process and part of that is we will do the long environmental assessment form. These are the areas that we are going to pay particular attention to and include them as an attachment because we feel they need special attention. The traffic and vehicular use study, what are the impacts on the traffic. Would the facility in being constructed and after it has been constructed, what is the parking. Visual impact study. We will take various views of the area from various view sites and view sheds within the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca to see what impact it is going to have once this building is constructed. Site drainage model and study will be conducted. Fire access study is in the process. The construction impact study will look at all of the impacts due to construction: the noise, the dust, the traffic, transportation load and those items. Archeological review of the site, we have already done a part 1 a on that and that was just recently completed. Our consultants, our architects designing it, will be doing a noise and exterior lighting model for the study. At this time I will accept any questions or comments that you have. Chairperson Wilcox — I would only ask that the construction impact study, one impact is what are you going to do with the material from the building you are taking down? Where is it going to go? If that's known and how might those trucks be weighted? Clearly we don't want vehicles hauling waste to be going through Forest Home for example, for the record. I know you wouldn't do it anyways, but just for the record. That's my only comment at this point. Anyone else? We kind of had the wonderful PowerPoint overview and it almost sounds like they know what they have to do. Board Member Thayer — Very well covered. Chairperson Wilcox — They know what they have to do in terms of environmental assessment. Anything else that they missed? I mean they've got stormwater here in your cover memo, but I think that will be covered under site drainage. Mr. Smith — The one thing that wasn't shown on the timeline is with the height that they need a height variance at the Zoning Board. 45 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Somebody on the radio mentioned that you were going to the City of Ithaca for approval.. .(not audible). Board Member Hoffmann — You mentioned mice. Is that what most of this building is going to be used for? Research using mice? Not that I have anything against it, I'm just curious. Mr. Gilbert — By far the largest number of animals at full capacity would be mice. They don't obviously occupy space in proportion to their number. So at least one floor would be dedicated to mice. The rest of the building would be a range of other animals that vary as projects start and end and new models emerge, but everything from fish to other rodents, to dogs to potentially even something as large as a sheep in a metabolic study or something like that could be used. Board Member Hoffmann 7 Well mice are nice because they don't take a lot of space when you are doing a study. Mr. Gilbert — They don't take a lot of space and genetically they are very useful. Board Member Conneman — These aren't diseased animals. Mr. Gilbert — Mostly they are not diseased animals. There is provision for an area of heightened security for diseased area in the proposed building. By far the majority are not diseased animals. When we get to the detail we will address it. There will be some diseased animals in the facility. Chairperson Wilcox — It certainly... Mr. Gilbert — I should clarify. You are talking infectious disease. There will be animals with other ailments that are not infectious. I assume your question addresses infectious disease. Chairperson Wilcox — Was there anything in the presentation that set off an alarm or you found why are they doing that? I don't see the potential of a height variance being a significant issue at this point based upon what we've seen. The issues of what will be done with infectious waste need to be addressed. I think you know what the answer is, hopefully, given everything else that has been going on with regard to the Vet School and the disposing of... Mr. Gilbert — This building does not include an incinerator. Board Member Talty — What is the current square footage of the building that is being taken down? Mr. Keefe — Its about total 4,000. EN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Maybe the issue is that we are getting a little less detail than maybe we sometimes get for sketch plan review. Maybe we usually get preliminary drawings and therefore we give more input. I almost feel like we haven't given them as much input as we normally do, but maybe we have more information at sketch plan. Board Member Conneman — They will come back with a preliminary plan, is that correct? Mr. Keefe — That's correct. Board Member Conneman — And then a final? Mr. Keefe — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — As you said, you are well on your way to finalizing those drawings and those studies and working with staff and have all the proper studies in. Board Member Hoffmann — If you look in that direction from Pine Tree Road to see if the building would be visible from these drawings it doesn't look like it would be visible. The two big buildings that are there already are very visible, but this one is going to be overshadowed by them I think. And as I looked at it incidentally, I noticed that the big tree that we saved by Burger King was gone. It had looked ill this spring. It didn't look like it was very healthy and I just noticed tonight that it was gone. It had been cut down. Chairperson Wilcox — Moving right along...is there anything else that you need from us this evening? Direction or...? Mr. Keefe — Do you think we are on the right track with what we are going to put together? Chairperson Wilcox — I think you are on the right track. Work with staff. They'll guide you through it. Ms. Ritter — Its an already built site so its different than being an unused site where there are more environmental concerns. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to give everybody a chance to speak if they would like to and we normally do that even though it is not a public hearing. I'm not sure if anybody is here to address Chairperson Wilcox invited members of the public to address the board regarding the above issue. No persons were interested in speaking. Chairperson Wilcox — When they come back for the approvals. there will be formally scheduled public hearings. Are we all set for tonight? You're all set. Thank you. Ed VA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes of July 27, 2004 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -084: Approval of Minutes — July 27, 2004 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the July 27, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Other Business Chairperson Wilcox and Board Member Hoffmann will be attending the New York State Planning Federation Conference in September. Board Member Howe will be attending through his place of employment. The board decided to cancel the September 21, 2004 meeting due to the potential for a lack of a quorum and reschedule the meeting for either Thursday, September 23, 2004 or Tuesday, September 28, 20040 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -085: Cancellation of September 21, 2004 Meeting MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Tally. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby cancel the September 21, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to be rescheduled for either Thursday, September 23, 2004 or Tuesday, September 28, 2004. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Tally, NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2004 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 - APPROVED Attorney Barney congratulated the board on winning the lawsuit Byrne vs. Town of Ithaca Planning Board. The petitioner has 30 days to appeal. Board Member Conneman mentioned Mr. Auble's comments in an editorial from the Ithaca Times were distributed with packet materials. The following week the Ithaca Times had comments from Christiann Dean and Tony Ingraham. He thought the comments should be distributed as well. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the August 17, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:47 p.m. R spe��c//tfully[Submitted, / 17 rv, Carrie Coates "itmore Deputy Town Clerk i• Notes from a 7/119 meeting of the Agricultural Committee Remaining Concerns of the Agricultural Committee regarding the new Zoning Ordinance I. John Barney's response to the July 17, 2004 List of Ag. Comm. Concerns a. Page 1, first italicized paragraph What does "in general" mean? b. Page 1, second italicized paragraph Demanding 500' setbacks for grazing or fencing is unreasonable. The committee understands the need for setbacks for storage of manure and compost, and for certain agricultural buildings, but feels that 500' setbacks deprives them of the use of too much of their land. II. John Barney's comments on the January 26 letter from Ag & Markets to Jon Kanter a. Response to #3. Why should an equestrian facility require a special permit? b. Response to #5. Why the 500 sq. ft. limit. What is the the restriction trying to accomplish? 500 sf is not nearly large enough for a greenhouse, which is required for nursery sales. What is the "one so- called roadside stand [that turned] into an almost full service grocery store "? Is it Eddydale? If so, it certainly is not close to being a full service grocery store c. Responses to #12 and #14. When there is a conflict between concerns of residents and Ag and Markets requirements, the Ag and Markets requirements take precedence. Other Concerns and Requests to be transmitted to the Town Board 1. They would like to add another member to the Committee to represent another farming family who is not currently represented. 2. In many places in Mr. Barney's response, it is stated that certain uses will be allowed upon receipt of special approval. Members of the committee find the requirement to seek special approval overly burdensome. Fees are levied, and they find themselves confused by the labyrinth of the town bureaucracy. They have often found that they have approached one body and have been told that it was the wrong place to bring their complaints. At other times, their request was approved by one body and rejected by another. Peter Stein, substituting for Herb Engman TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, August 17, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:04 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18 on Elmira Road (divided into 45.141 and 2.617 acre parcels), Neighborhood Commercial and Conservation Zones. The original subdivision approval was granted on August 22, 2000, and required consolidation of the 45.141 -acre parcel with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -5.2 within six months. The applicant received two extensions of the consolidation timeframe requirement, which most recently will expire on August 31, 2004. The applicant is requesting an open -ended extension. Sally A. Cortright, Owner; NYS Office of Parks - Finger Lakes Region, Applicant; Sue A. Poelvoorde, Agent. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 32- Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots and one 1'/2 +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albem, Agent. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Arthropod Facility located off Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -2, Planned Development Zone No.9. The project involves construction of a +/- 3,600 square foot one story arthropod research building containing laboratories, rearing rooms, greenhouses, and support space. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Jeffrey Lallas, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located on the northeast corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 63 -1 -2.2 and 67 -1 -10.3, Low Density Residential Zone. Phase I of the proposal involves construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot multi -story building, with a possible Phase II 4 -story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching, and will be directly connected to the College of Veterinary Medicine. The project will require demolition of the existing one -story building that currently occupies the proposed site. Cornell University, Owner; John M. Keefe, Applicant/Agent, 6. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 7. Approval of Minutes: July 27, 2004, 8, Other Business: Last call for registration for New York State Planning Federation Conference. 9, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, August 17, 2004 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, August 17, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:04 P.M. Consideration of Modification of previous conditions of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18 on Elmira Road (divided into 45.141 and 2.617 acre parcels), Neighborhood Commercial and Conservation Zones. The original subdivision approval was granted on August 22, 2000, and required consolidation of the 45.141 -acre parcel with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 -1- 5.2 within six months. The applicant received two extensions of the consolidation timeframe requirement, which most recently will expire on August 31, 2004. The applicant is requesting an open -ended extension. Sally A. Cortright, Owner; NYS Office of Parks - Finger Lakes Region, Applicant; Sue A. Poelvoorde, Agent. 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 32 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -3.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots and one 1' /z +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Alberti, Agent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Arthropod Facility located off Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -2, Planned Development Zone No.9. The project involves construction of a +/- 3,600 square foot one story arthropod research building containing laboratories, rearing rooms, greenhouses, and support space. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Jeffrey Lallas, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, August 9, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 i�The�ithacarJou�rnal � �'�` r Vllednesday, =�August�``1;�2004 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: August 17, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION i Yus / u..: ZV ,S cL 4 C L (2 It, TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board— 215 North Tio a Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: August 9, 2004 August 11, 2004 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of August 2004. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No,01CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 O iG