Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-07-19FILE DATE A" TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, July 19, 2005, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS Andy Sciarabba & Linda Luciano, 950 Danby Rd; Brenda Smith, Cornell University; George Gesslein, 118 Sharpsteen Rd; Jon Bosak, 1448 Trumansburg Rd; Denise & Doug Pokorney, 282 Hayts Rd; Leah Solla & Steven Doughhetee, 245 Hayts Rd; Christopher Alpha, 260 Hayts Rd; Robert Jackman, 1060 N Cayuga St. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 11, 2005 and July 13, 2005, 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 July 13, 2005. Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m., and asks if any members of the public wished to speak. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. SEQR DETERMINATION Cornell University Precinct 8 Athletic Fields - Modify Resolution Condition, Game Farm Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Brenda Smith, Cornell University I am here tonight to represent Cornell in a request for a modification to the final site plan approval that was granted on August 5, 2003 for the Precinct 8 athletic fields project. At that time, the project was approved to build 4 new athletic fields at a site out in this area. I'll orient you on this map. This is the north arrow so the top of the map is north. This road is Route 366. This winding line is Cascadilla Creek. This is the Cornell Campus.. This is Pine Tree Road. This is Ellis Hollow Road. This is Game Farm Road and the site is located here, just off Game Farm Road. So at the time in 2003, we had a project approved to build four new athletic fields on the site that I am indicating. Two of the fields required an import of fill of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill and that fill is being provided by a project called the Life Sciences Technology Building, which is being built on Cornell's central campus. That is indicated here in the green block, which is off Tower Road off Cornell's campus. At the time that we came for our original site .plan approval, we talked, one of the issues that we talked about was peak hour traffic interruptions and how construction traffic impacted peak hour traffic along Route 366 and in general on the other project. At that time, the Planning Board included a special condition to the approval that was a truck routing plan. That limited construction traffic, hauling fill from the Life Sciences project site to taking Tower Road to Route 366, to Game Farm Road and then returning back to campus with the empty vehicles by going back the same route. That commission also limited truck traffic to..,the hours of operation were restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and that was to avoid overlapping the morning peak hour traffic. Well, we are requesting a modification to that condition today because since then, we have had several new conditions raised for discussion. Since that project was approved, a contractor has been hired for that project. In June of this year, I had a meeting at the job site here with the contractor, with engineers from Cornell's Facilities Department, Fred Noteboom from the Town of Ithaca, somebody from the Tompkins County Highway Department and someone from the Town of Dryden Highway Department. So all us met at the job site and walked Game Farm Road and talked about the hauling plan and what it would mean practically speaking. A lot of new thoughts were raised at that meeting, which were excellent points and so that led to our making this request for modification. So specifically we are requesting two things. We are requesting that the truck route be modified so that the contractor drives to the site in the way originally approved, but they are allowed to return to the site by going back south on Game Farm Road via Ellis Hollow Road and back on Route 366. A benefit to this is that instead of making a left hand turn at an unlighted intersection here, which is Game Farm Road and Route 366, this allows the contractor to make the return trip, which is right hand turns and many of the intersections are lighted. That is especially beneficial because this intersection was the lowest level of service when we did our traffic impact study from the original project. This intersection had the lowest level of service and it was turning left at that intersection that had the lowest level of service. So allowing the contractor to PA Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved return this way would be at certain times of the day a faster trip for the construction vehicles, but also and perhaps more importantly, for the other vehicles on the road at the same time. So we would like to allow the construction vehicles to have the option to return from the site in this direction. The other part of this modification request is that we would like to have the hour restrictions lifted. This hour restriction allows the contractor to start hauling from campus to the site at 8:30 a.m. So in thinking about that further, we thought out that there. is a certain volume of fill that has to be hauled whether that is over a shorter number of weeks and months, but we have a longer day or whether it is over a shorter day, but longer weeks and months. So we thought it would be more beneficial and have less impact on the transportation system in this area to have most of the trucks happening in the non - academic months and the summer months, but have a slightly longer day. The contractor starts work around 7:00 a.m. and would probably hit the road with their vehicles at 7:15 a.m. So if we were to allow them to start hauling at 7:00 a.m. they could get a few more trips in per day. I think that is also another reason why that may not be problematic is because if they are returning in this direction, especially during the times when the traffic gets heavier, they are not making the turn at that intersection that we were concerned about, the left hand turn onto Route 366 during peak hour times. I think that was of primary concern. There are safety issues that are also improved if we allow the contractor to return in this direction that would reduce or eliminate the number of times that two trucks would be passing each other on Game Farm Road. This stretch, as I think you all know, has a number of recreational walkers, and joggers. There is a recreational trail in this area and there is a narrow bridge. It is a two -lane bridge, but it is narrow. So this would eliminate or reduce the number of times the two construction vehicles were passing each other or the number of times the trucks were going over the bridge in that area. So we saw all those as benefits and we thought that request to make. We know that the special condition is in has been aware of it. They have been on the job with that are prepared to follow it, but this plan, which came out of t highway personnel and with the engineers and contractor the impact on the area. this would be a reasonable place now. The contractor condition in place and they he conversation with all the seems like it would reduce Chairperson Wilcox — We don't have anything written from Fred Noteboom. Can anybody on staff speak for him? Mr. Hebdon — I know Dan and I have had extensive discussions about this and we talked about the plus and minuses of both and pretty much think that it is just a wash either way if we keep it the way that it is or if we let it go the other way. We have no real preference either way. Chairperson Wilcox — We are trading in a left hand turn onto Route 366 for a right hand turn onto Ellis Hollow Road. That is essentially what we are doing. 3 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Mr. Hebdon — Basically we are letting them do all rights until they get back onto 366. You could argue either way equally well. Chairperson Wilcox — Does the contractor work an 8 -hour day beginning at 7 -7:15? Ms. Smith —.I think... I don't know if it is 8 hours. They would probably start around 7 and work until 4 o'clock most days and sometimes a little later. Chairperson. Wilcox — Your request to eliminate the hours of operation really comes about because you would like them to start earlier. Ms. Smith —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Not because you want them to go later. Ms. Smith — That is correct. Board Member Howe — You addressed my question. Chairperson Wilcox - Maybe changing the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Board Member Thayer — That works Chairperson Wilcox — That keeps them from running at 9 p.m., for example. Gentlemen, questions? Board Member Talty — Cubic yards moved, again, how many is that? Ms. Smith — It is approximately 30,000 cubic yards that will come to this site. Board Member Talty — And what is the size of the dump truck? Ms. Smith — I think they may use 20 cubic yard vehicle trucks. I am not sure. Ten is standard for a lot of our jobs, but this is a big job so they may be using 20 -yard trucks. Mr. Hebdon - If they use the standard 10- wheeler you get ten yards, but if you move up to ... this one they are probably going to use the dump- bodies on this, I would assume, the 18- wheeler dump bodies. Chairperson Wilcox — They have how many cubic yards? Mr. Hebdon — They are the 20s that she is talking about. They practically double your size. Chairperson Wilcox — So that is 1500 round trips at 20 cubic yards a trip. LI Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Mr. Kanter — It looks like he is trying to ask a question. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I don't know Kevin if you are going to follow up or not with a question or not. - Board Member Talty — I have been pondering this for days because this is specifically my little entity of the original resolution and the reason that I looked at this was for. _.__._no.ise.,_for safety_,.._and_.for. dirt. and dust _in_the_area.___It..all__makes .sense to -me. I like the right hand turn notion. I would be willing to extend the hours, but what I am not happy about is these trailers going in front of East Hill Plaza. Especially, we just considered this two weeks ago in the exact same thing ... well I didn't. I excused myself, but overheard it in the audience, that there is a significant issue with people crossing the street between Ides and plaza and these are big trucks, massive trucks. So although I am in favor of the right hand turns and I'm more in favor of speeding up the project with eliminating the hours, I got to tell you I don't know if I am in favor of having these trucks go, that many trucks in front of East Hill Plaza. So I need to ponder this a little longer, but quickly. Board Member Mitrano — It's in front of East Hill Plaza? Board Member Talty — It will be on the return trucks. Board Member Mitrano — And did someone already do the calculation as to how much more quickly it will be done by doing it this way than if its done during restricted hours? Chairperson Wilcox — No. I think that what was said was that instead of 8:30 to 4:30, they are really looking at 7 to 3 or 3:30. It is still like an 8 or an 8.5 -hour time period, but the contractor starts at 7 or 7:15. So I think as you walked in we were just kind of thinking of not unlimited hours, but maybe changing 8:30 - 4:30 to 7 — 4:30. Mr. Hebdon — They will be running passed East Hill Plaza empty also. So they won't have any material on the truck when they go pass there. Most of the dust and stuff will be eliminated by the time they get there and it does give them the ability to stop quicker, too. -Board Member Mitrano — What- part is Pine -Tree Road then? Is that East Hill Plaza? Mr. Hebdon — It is Ellis Hollow and then Pine Tree Road. Board Member Mitrano — So Route 366 picks it up to where Judd Falls Road and that little... okay, thank you. Mr. Kanter — My understanding is that not all the fill from the Life Sciences project is going to the athletic fields site. Some is going into Dryden, is it? 5 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Ms. Smith — Well, the contractor for this project, which I'm not very familiar with, but I'm told that this contractor calculated for their excavation that there would be approximately 65,000 to 70,000 cubic yards of fill generated. So the balance of that fill will go wherever that contractor has found a fill site. That is Frank Paolangeli and he has a site that is further down Ellis Hollow Road so his plan is to take all the fill that doesn't come to this site down Ellis Hollow Road a few miles to his fill site. So it will be very difficult to tell which trucks are which. There is going to be approximately equal amounts of fill coming here and going here and the remainder of the fill is not regulated in any way by this project or even by the Life Sciences project. So he will pick his most efficient and safest route and get his permits for that as he normally would. Board Member Thayer — He has no trucking restrictions, right, that contractor? Ms. Smith - I don't know of any. I am only familiar with these trucking regulations. Mr. Kanter — In terms of the contract, it is probably the same contract to move the fill from the Life Sciences, right? It's just a question of which approval entity as to whether there is a truck routing plan or not. The City did not require a truck routing plan with the Life Sciences building whereas this Planning Board did with our project. Ms: Smith — So by Cornell's contract with Paolangeli Contractor, when they are bringing fill to and driving back from this job site they must follow the truck routing plan. Board Member Mitrano — I apologize for coming in late, but I am not opposed to this. Chairperson Wilcox - You want to continue to ponder while we move through the SEQR? Board Member Talty — I will do the best I can to speed up the... I just have an issue with regards to these dump trucks going passed East Hill. I mean there are a lot of people walking. Game Farm Road in population is nothing compared to right in front of P &C. Nothing. No comparison. I would like to know if any traffic studies have been done with regard to the amount of vehicles that enter and exit that plaza as well as right there at Mitchell and Judd Falls at that signal because that is a terrible signal. That intersection, if you have ever come up Mitchell and try to turn onto Judd Falls, its really a wacky type of intersection. Chairperson Wilcox — Its turn left onto Pine Tree now. Board Member Talty. — I've got to tell you that I would be willing to go half way and open up the hours, but I don't know about... and the odds of two dump trucks, if you have 9 an hour, the odds of two dump trucks passing themselves on Game Farm, I just did the calculations quickly is not... it may happen, but it is not going to happen each time coming and going. The math isn't there.. So I am not in favor of totally changing the resolution as I see it. I would be willing to open up the hours, but not having the dump trucks going down Pine Tree and in front of P &C. Is Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Board Member Mitrano — Well, I guess the reason why I wasn't opposed to it is because the concern about the people crossing from East Hill Plaza over to the other side of the street is going to be any greater in the extended, hours that they are looking for. If this had been going down, which is why I wanted to clarify, Pine Tree over to 79 where there is a lot of residential area, I think I would have had a different kind of situation, but this is really not a very residential area. I can't even think of a single house accept for the Summerhill housing. Am I missing something? -- — - -- — -- — -- _ -- -- _. - -- Board Member Howe — There are a couple. There are some along the upper part of Game Farm. Board Member Mitrano — The upper part of Game. Farm, right. There is that nice house that they have done a lot of ... I know what you mean. Chairperson Wilcox — There are some right there in the Town of Dryden right near the corner of Game Farm Road and Ellis Hollow. Board Member Mitrano — Well if there are people here for that then I would be interested in hearing from them. I guess my point was that it is not a highly residential area so the extension of hours didn't concern me then. Ms: Smith — I wanted to comment on the safety issue, which was of concern to me as well and to the contractor, they have to live with it. Our thoughts were that this road is narrower, seems narrower and here the sight distances are better, seem better. So our thought was that they would have a better straight ahead view. It is a flat straight road. This is straight but it isn't flat here at all. It's narrow here. With this recreation trail it really does get a lot of activity. So it is a toss up, I agree. Part of what we were thinking is that this would be an option for the contractor, but we would let them. manage their own traffic on this. loop. So we fully accept that they would be left to take the least ... the route that is best for them that would minimize safety concerns as well. So our thoughts are that certain times of day this would be an attractive route for them to take back and then other times of day this would... I don't know how exactly that would play out, did just want to mention one thing much less concern than the safety issue, -Road at this end is not great. —That is the three different entities and the north end is the road that is not in as good condition. I forgot to mention before, which is this is of but the pavement condition on Game Farm County section. This road is. maintained by maintained by Tompkins County and that is Board Member Mitrano — Are there still apartment buildings up towards the corner? Board Member Howe — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — We are still doing SEQR, by the way, just so we can bring ourselves back to that. Any other questions? Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Attorney Barney - I should disclose that we represent Paolangeli Contractor, Chairperson Wilcox - Your office does. Does that mean you do? Attorney Barney - Several of us do. Chairperson Wilcox So I guess we were kind of thinking about restricting the hours Gerie. ral - cons. ensus- here. — __.Kevin: - -1 -- acknowledge- that- you- -may feel differently about that. Board Member Talty - Time is okay. I understand that they are trying to expedite this project. I am still not clear. Are you saying that 4:30 is okay? Because the way that I read it, it was kind of open -ended for both ends. Ms. Smith - I wrote it open -ended and that was the request, but just changing the morning hour would be fine. I don't anticipate that they would want to haul late. Board Member Howe moves the SEQR resolution and Board Member Thayer seconds the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -068: SEQR, Condition Modification, Cornell University - Precinct 8 Athletic Fields, Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62- 2-3, 62 -2 -4, 624-5, 62 -24 MOTION made. by Board Member Howe, ' seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of modification of condition "1.g" of the Planning Board's Resolution for Site Plan Approval, granted August 5, 2003, Town. of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62 -2 -3, 62 -24, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. Said condition required the transport of fill material for construction of Phase ll of the athletic fields project off Game Farm Road to be restricted to the hours of 8:30AM to 4:30PM and to follow a specified route to and from the excavation site using Tower Road, Route 366, and Game Farm Road. The applicant is requesting that the hours of operation not be restricted, and that trucks returning to the. excavation site from Game Farm Road have the flexibility to return by means of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Smith, Civil. Engineer, Agent. 2, The Planning Board, in granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the athletic fields construction project on August 5, 2003, imposed certain conditions of approval, including condition "1.g" which stated that the "transport of fill material for Phase 11 of the project shall be in accordance with the Truck Routing Plan outlined in the July 14, 2003 letter from Cornell University, and be restricted EV Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved to the hours between 8:30AM and 4:30PM, so as to not overlap with peak hour traffic.'; and 3. The applicant has requested that the Planning Board allow the truck routing plan to be modified so that empty trucks returning to the excavation site on campus be allowed to return by means of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366, and that the restrictions on the hours of the truck hauling operation be removed, and 4. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to the resolution condition modification, and 5. The Planning Board, on July 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Planning staff, and application materials for the resolution condition modification, and 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed resolution condition modification. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe NAYS: Talty. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried. - Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:27 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of modifying condition "1.g." of the Planning Board's Resolution for Site Plan Approval, granted August 5, 2003, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62 =2 -39 62 -241 62 =2 -5, 62 -M, Low Density Residential Zone. Said condition required the transport of fill material for construction of Phase II of the athletic fields project off Game Farm Road to be restricted to the hours of 8830AM to 4 @30PM and to follow a specified route to and from the excavation site using 17 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Tower Road, Route 366, and Game Farm Road. The applicant is requesting that the hours of operation not be restricted, and that trucks returning to the excavation site from Game Farm Road have flexibility to return by means of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Any additional questions of Ms. Smith? Okay. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. and invites. members of the public to address the board. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Comments? Attorney Barney — I would just like to ask has Cornell thought about any kind of help they might give to the Town's cost of repairing the roads after they, have run these 18- wheel trucks over them for the next month or two? Ms. Smith — That issue was raised at the meeting that I had in June with those different entities and that is something that is being discussed, but I don't have the approval authority and don't know what ... (not audible) is. Board Member Mitrano John, I think that is a terrific suggestion. How do we encapsulate that even though we don't have the authority to dictate that? Attorney Barney I thought that I would take it to the Town Board via local law... (not audible)... Board Member Mitrano — Sounds good. Board Member Talty — I would like to say one more thing. With regards to any fill, because not all the fill always comes out of the trucks, if any of the fill hits the road or if there is a need for flagmen at any particular time I would expect the contractor to provide both. A — to clean up the dirt on the road and B — to have any type of flagmen or any type of directional assistance during unforeseen peak type traffic. Ms. Smith - Absolutely. We agree. Cornell is requiring that of the contractor. We will require that of the contractor. Mr. Hebdon — The fill on the road part now, since they have gone to the SPDES, phase II, they have that part where you are supposed to have a stabilized construction entrance and they don't... DEC doesn't want to se the stuff on the road any more. So there is a lot more teeth in that. We have the ability now just to go out and tell the contractors you can't be doing that. It isn't as much as a something that needs to come out of here every single time any more like it used to be. We have a lot more ability to getout and tell them that they have to stop now. it Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Attorney Barney – (not audible) —Mr:- Hebdon -- But-just coming off the truck wheels and stuff, even that now they are not allowed to do that any more. The last DEC ... with the SPDES phase II, they have to have a stabilized construction entrance, which I am sure. Cornell has and they can't come out with anything on the wheels or anything .any more. It has to be... if necessary they have to wash the trucks off before they put them on the road now. Attorney Barney – My concern more is the wear and tear on the road. Board Member Talty – I understand, but I figure we can't enforce what I just said, but we can enforce what you just said. Board Member Mitrano – I think it's the other way around. Ms. Smith – If I could just let you know, recently Paolangeli Contractors made a paved entrance to the site as their temporary stabilized construction entrance and they do have wheel washes on campus where they are doing their loading operations. So they will be washing the wheels. Also, with respect to your. comment on the wear and. tear on the roads, that is something that I think needs quite a bit of discussion because for example some of the issues that come up at this meeting was that the different sections of the road are in different condition and they are different thicknesses and base step. Not all of the entities have a history on how that ... on what load that road was designed to carry and so the actual impact on the road depends on the condition that it is in to begin with. So we are working on assessing that. The Tompkins County Highway Department has volunteered at that meeting to do an inventory of the road condition and share it with all of us. So that is something that we are actively working on. And one of the things, perhaps the best benefit that is already in place is that we are not going to be doing this in the wettest time of year, in the spring. We were originally going to haul the fill in the spring, but now we are not doing that. Just hauling on a road that has a drier base is a huge benefit to the road conditions. So that is something that we are working on that is going to take some discussion, I think. Mr. Kanter – If all goes as expected, what is the time period of the hauling anticipated to be? Ms. Smith - I was told today that they would like to start on or about August 1St and it would be a 3 -4 month process and be a little bit shorter and we an extra hour in the day. Board Member Mitrano moves the resolution and Board Member Howe seconds the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox – I think we are all in agreement that we would like to modify the resolution in some way. It would appear that we could change the wording at the very 11 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved end where it says the restrictions on the hours of... instead of being removed, it can be revised to 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -069: Condition Modification, Cornell University —, Precinct 8 Athletic Fields, Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 =2- 3, 6244, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of modification of condition "1.g." of the Planning Board's Resolution for Site Plan Approval, granted August 5, 2003, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62 -2 -3, 62 -24, 62 -2 -5, 62m2 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. Said condition required the transport of fill material for construction of Phase 11 of the athletic fields project off Game Farm Road to be restricted to the hours of 8:30AM to 4:30PM and to follow a specified route to and from the excavation site using Tower Road, Route 366, and Game Farm Road. The applicant is requesting that the hours of operation not be restricted, and that trucks returning to the excavation site from Game Farm Road have the flexibility to return by means of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, in granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the athletic fields construction project on August 5, 2003, imposed certain conditions of approval, including condition "1.g" which stated that the "transport of fill material for Phase 11 of the project shall be in accordance with the Truck Routing Plan outlined in the July 14, 2003 letter from Cornell University, and be restricted to the hours between 8:30AM and 4:30PM, so as to not overlap with peak hour traffic.'; and 3. The applicant has requested that the Planning Board allow the truck-routing plan to be modified so that empty trucks returning to the excavation site on campus be allowed to return by means of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366, and that the restrictions on the hours of the truck hauling operation be removed, and 4. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to modification of the resolution condition has, on July 19, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, prepared by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 12 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants the modification of Condition "1.g." of Site Plan Approval for the Cornell University Athletic Fields construction project on Game Farm Road, granted on August 5, 2003, to modify the truck routing plan to .--allow- -trucks -to return to the excavation site by way of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366 and that the restrictions on the hours of trucking operation be modified to permit hauling between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m: _ the_ _v_ote -on -the_motion- resulted_as- follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: Talty. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried. SEQR Determination South Hill Business Campus, 950 Danby Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Linda Luciano, 950 Danby Road We are here tonight to revisit our sketch plan review and ask for final site plan review for South Hill Business Campus and also to look at the rezoning into a Planned Development Zone. Currently we are zoned industrial and light rindustrial uses are permitted, but we are looking at a planned development zone to allow a better mix of tenants, including business office park uses. I am not sure what to go over that I did not cover in the sketch plan review, but basically the background is that the building was purchased in December. Originally NCR, many years ago, manufacturing firm and then later purchased by Axiohm and in December was purchased by a group of local investors. Andy, being the managing partner,, and the thought there was to offer office and manufacturing type space to local firms looking for start up, incubator type space or other uses, The planned development zone would help us offer a better mix of uses for people looking to rent space. The other thing a planned development zone woul requirement that each tenant have a site plan review. tenant coming in looking at space for me to have to say would fit perfectly, but I have to go to the Town first and schedule and see if it is okay to rent to you. It is kind of at some relief from that requirement as well. d do It is here take a hai is help us with the current kind of a detraction to a is a great space and you a month and get on their Rd sell. So we are looking The building is in three sections. The main building is factory and the 4 -story office tower built in 1957 and the addition put on in 1975. We have, since I presented last time the sketch plan, I have updated the current tenant list and we have actually gotten more tenants, which is a good thing. We started with four and right now we have 13 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved 14 tenants. Some are pending, but we have been able to help 14 people out with some good space. Plenty of space is left is anyone is_ interested. So the other things that -have changed since I was here last -that we have been approved as a Brownfield site. The building land has some chemical... some hazardous chemicals on it, which the owners have voluntarily decided to clean up and they have gone through the State DEC and has since been approved as a Brownfield site. Andy Sciarabba, 950 Danby Road The Brownfield authorization approval came in last week and the only thing that is pending right now is we are supposed to sign contracts with them, which our attorneys are reviewing right now and there are wording changes, but otherwise we are set to go on that. Ms. Luciano — What other questions can I answer? Chairperson Wilcox — If you are done with your presentation, then I will give people a chance to answer questions. Are you all set for now? Ms. Luciano — Sure. I Chairperson Wilcox — If I may start, with regard to the Brownfield designation or regard to the contamination on the site, were you required to clean that up? Mr. Sciarabba — No. We volunteered. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you get any financial benefit from volunteering? Mr. Sciarabba — Under the Brownfields program it is basically a volunteer program and what happens is you do the remediation and based upon the remediation costs along with the development of the area that has been designated under the Brownsfield program, we will eventually get refundable New York State tax credits back. It is not dollar per dollar. If we spend $5 million, we may get back $1 million some day from the State of New York. The State has not included the entire 70 acres in the parcel.. The parcel will be (not audible... describes site included). Board Member Howe — It seems pretty straightforward from your last presentation and I think it makes sense to do the PDZ. Chairperson Wilcox — Staff? Comments? Attorney Barney — We also represent this entity. So I decline to participate in this application. Board Member Thayer moves the SEQR resolution and Board Member Talty seconds the motion. 14 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Mr. Kanter — I noticed two corrections on page 3 of 21 in the EAF, part I. Actually Al was easy, I noticed under present land use I noticed nothing was checked so I would - suggest checking industrial and commercial. -Then on the same page, number 5, based on the attachment that was provided by the engineer, I think the slope category should be 100% in the 0 -10% rather than what was checked as 100% in the 15% or .greater. That is the ... there was a environmental assessment form, South Hill Business Campus LLC_- attachment -that- had - the - date -stamp of June 20, 2005 and this was prepared by S &W Redevelopment of North America LLC and in number 5 they had indicated 100% of the proposed project site with slope 0 -10% and I would tend to concur with that based upon the developed area of the site, which is what we were talking about. So just those two corrections. Chairperson Wilcox —.I have made those corrections on the official copy if you will and initialed them. Any other discussion? With none, Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -070: SEQR — South Hill Business Campus, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to Town Board Re_garding Rezoning, Tax Parcel No.'s 39-1-1.1 and 39- 1 -1.2, 950 Danby Road MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (establishing a baseline of existing uses, buildings, and site layout) and a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of a portion of the South Hill Business Campus property located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39 -1-1.1 and 39- 1 -1.2, Industrial and Office Park Commercial Zones.. The proposal involves rezoning the existing Industrial Zone portion of the site to a new Planned Development Zone, which would allow a mix of uses allowed in . the Industrial, Light Industrial, and Office Park Commercial Zones. South. Hill Business Campus, LLC, Andy Sciarabba, Managing Partner, Owner /Applicant; Linda Luciano, Property Manager, Agent, and . 2. -Said rezoning is described in--A Local-Law to Amend Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for a Planned Development Zone for the South Hill Business Campus on Danby Road Owned by South Hill Business Campus, LLC," which the Town Board is considering for enactment, and 3. It has been determined that the above- described rezoning and site plan approval would be Type I actions, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.4(b) (2) (also known as the SEQRA regulations - "the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within any zoning district, affecting 25 or more acres'), since the current Industrial Zone portion of the site in question. consists of about 41.3 +/- acres proposed to be 15 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved rezoned to PDZ, which would require the establishment of a Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review pursuant to the SEQRA regulations, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in TB Resolution- No. 2005 -055, has referred the rezoning request to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and in TB Resolution No. 2005 -090, has requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be designated as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental "review of the above actions, and 5. In a letter dated June 21, 2005, the Planning Board proposed to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - referenced actions, and notified potential Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead Agency, and 6. The Planning . Board, at its meeting held on July 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment .Form (EAF) Part .1 prepared by the applicant, Part 11 of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including the applicant's submission for site plan approval and rezoning, and the above- referenced proposed Local Law, and 7. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed rezoning and site plan approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - described actions, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced actions as proposed and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. 16 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of Preliminary and Final - Site Plan Approval (establishing a baseline of, existing uses, buildings, and site layout) and a Recommendation to Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of a portion of the South Hill Business Campus property located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel _:No.'s_ 39.- 1- 1_- 1__and- :39- 1- 1:2,__Industr-ial and - Office Park Commercial- Zones. The proposal involves rezoning the existing Industrial Zone portion of the site to a new Planned Development Zone, which would allow a mix of uses allowed in the Industrial, Light Industrial, and Office Park Commercial Zones. South Hill Business Campus, LLC, Andy Sciarabba, Managing Partner, Owner /Applicant, Linda Luciano, Property Manager, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox - Anything else you wish to add at this point? Questions with regard to the site plan as provided to us? Board Member Mitrano - No. Chairperson Wilcox - Comments from staff? Mr. Kanter - Just that the local law has been provided. If you have any questions, I can give more details on what is different from the current industrial zone I would be glad to answer them, but l think Linda did a pretty good job of explaining it. There are some uses that were added to the local law that were not in any of the three zones, the office park zone, the light industrial or the industrial zone. Those were things like the conference and event center, which the building already happens to have a good space for that. Off - premises catering, which again the cafeteria area provides a good space for that. Educational uses, proving the nature of the use is otherwise authorized in the pdz. That is new and the recording studio. I don't know, but that is in there, too. There are a couple of other minor modifications of uses. For instances, the banks and restaurants were allowed in the office park zone, but we have added the prerequisite that they not have drive - through facilities. Then as Linda mentioned, the site plan modification thresholds have been adjusted so that basically if the only change is a change of use or occupancy and there are no exterior changes that otherwise would be triggered by -the parking -or circulation or_- access or the other thresholds, then it would not have to come in for site plan approval. They could just go through the building permit process. The only difference with that one is that if there are hazardous substances associated with that use or occupancy, then that would have to come in for further site plan review and environmental evaluation. That's about it. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Any questions? Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. and invites members of the public to address the board. With no one wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. and brings the matter back to the board. IIN Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox - I think we struck a good compromise between oversight on the part of the Planning Board and allowing them to modify the interior space and not - require -them unnecessary review on the- part- of this board... Any other questions, comments? Board Member Mitrano moves the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconds the motion.. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -071: South Hill Business Campus, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to Town Board Re_garding Rezoning, Tax Parcel No.'s 39-1-1.1 and 3944.2, 950 Danby Road MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (establishing a baseline of existing uses, buildings, and site layout) and a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of a portion of the South Hill Business Campus property located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39-1 -1.1 and 39- 1 -.1.2, Industrial and Office Park Commercial Zones. The proposal involves rezoning the existing Industrial Zone portion of the site .to a new Planned Development Zone, which would allow a mix of uses allowed in the Industrial, Light Industrial, and Office Park Commercial Zones. South Hill Business Campus, LLC, Andy Sciarabba, Managing Partner, Owner /Applicant; Linda Luciano, Property Manager, Agent, and 2. Said rezoning is described in "A Local Law to Amend Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for a Planned Development Zone for the South Hill Business Campus on Danby Road Owned by South Hill Business Campus, LLC," which the Town Board is considering for enactment, and 3. It has been determined that the above - described rezoning and site plan approval would be Type I actions, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.4(b) (2) (also known as the SEQRA regulations - "the adoption of changes in the allowable uses within — any zoning - district,-- affecting _25 or more-acres'), since the current Industrial Zone portion of the site in question consists of about 41.3 +/- acres proposed to be rezoned to PDZ, which would require the establishment of a Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review pursuant to the SEQRA regulations, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in TB Resolution No. 2005 -055, has referred the rezoning request to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and in TB Resolution No. 2005 -090, has requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be designated as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above actions, and Planning Board Minutes .July 19, 2005 Approved 51 Having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board established itself as Lead Agency at its meeting on July 19, 2005 to coordinate the environmental review of the above - referenced actions, and 6. The Planning Board, after reviewing and accepting as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, and Part 11 of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, has issued a negative --determination-of envir_onmental_significan.ce with -regard_to_the_proposed rezoning and site plan approval at its meeting on July 19, 2005, and 7. The Planning Board, after holding a public hearing on July 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate. the submitted application materials, including the applicant's submission for site plan approval and rezoning, and the above - referenced proposed Local Law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Section 270- 236(H) of the Town of Ithaca Code, hereby finds that: a. There is a need for the proposed Planned Development Zone for the South Hill Business Campus to allow more efficient re -use of the existing underutilized building, and b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the proposed rezoning and re- occupancy of the building, and C, The proposed rezoning is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, which designates the project site as appropriate for "Limited Industrial" development, and in addition, is adequately served by public water and sewer facilities, is proximate to the City of Ithaca, and is served by adequate parking facilities and access to Route 96B, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed "Local Law to Amend Zoning Chapters 270 and 271 of the Town of Ithaca Code to Provide for a Planned Development Zone for the South Hill Business Campus on Danby Road Owned by South Hill Business Campus, LLC'; which would apply to the 41.3 +/- acres currently zoned "Industrial'; and BE IT FURTHER 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 19 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and - 2: - - That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval in order to establish a baseline of existing uses, buildings, and site layout for the South Hill Business Campus property located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39 -1 -1.1 and 3944.2, as shown on the site plan application materials submitted by the applicant, and as a pre- requisite for the enactment of the proposed Local Law establishing a new Planned Development Zone, as stated in Section 2.A(17) of the proposed Local Law. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. SKETCH PLAN Proposed 8 -lot subdivision located on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32, Agricultural Zone. The proposal is to consolidate Tax Parcels 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 into one +/- 87.9 -acre parcel, then subdivide off 7 residential lots (averaging 2.581 acres) along Hayts Road with the remaining +/- 69 acres being maintained as one parcel fronting on Trumansburg Road. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; George J. Gesslein, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m. George Gesslein, 118 Sharpsteen Rd, Locke NY The Babcocks have been trying to 160 acres. This is Route 96, Trumansburg Road. They own from their old chicken farm still 160 acres, divided into three parcels. The top parcel is 72 acres. _ The middle parcel is 69 acres and the parcel on Hayts Road is 18 acres. Probably 17 or 18 years ago the Town approved a SLUD for a senior citizen type project in the center parcel, which never quite got finished. A number of people tried it, but- nothing ever happened. -The zoning is now agricultural and I have talked to a number of people in the last year and a half that I have been involved with the Babcocks and most of are demand is for single family house lots. This is what most of the people want and there are a few people who are interested in acquiring the land for agricultural purposes and have expressed some interest. Right now we have three parties interested in the center parcel as agricultural. This proposal is to take the two parcels, the center one and the lower one, consolidate them and then create 7 lots on Hayts Road leaving one here and then four undefined in that last... in the center parcel. You have the ability under your zoning to put 12 lots in here. So we would do 7 here and depending on who buys it, they will come to the 20 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved board to do whatever they want to do here in the center parcel. The Hayts Road lot is sort of difficult to divide easily because it has a lot of woodland, a lot of streams and a pond right in the middle of it, but the engineers and the Health Department have gotten together and put together 7 lots, which subject to a number of things, seem to work. We still... we haven't done perk tests and we haven't drilled wells, although the Babcocks have some wells over here that fed 9,000 chickens so I suspect.that there is water up there somewhere. You may have to go a little deeper than normal. I think their wells. are .ab_ out -20 -O. feet_ deep - ------- .----- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -_ -- -= -- — _ .- - - -- So we believe the proposal stays within the current zoning requirements., One thing, which we have included, is a 60 -foot wide. strip along the back of the center parcel, which connects Hayts Road all the way to the north parcel. I don't know whether that will ever have any use. Initially the Babcocks will retain title. It may eventually be turned over to whoever buys this or whoever buys that. The Babcocks don't intend to keep a 60 -foot strip forever. We don't know what will happen. There are a lot of unknowns here. So I guess at this point I am up for questions if anyone has any. Board Member Mitrano — The 60 -foot strip, George, is just sort of a barrier? Mr. Gesslein — No. It is a potential for access from Hayts Road to this parcel or from Hayts Road to that parcel. Now the difficulty with marketing this upper parcel is it only has 57 feet on the Trumansburg Road. The people we have looking at it have had a terrible time finding it. I should have a bushhog in there this week to clean this all up so that we can get people in there to at least find it. Then I think we will have ... there are people who raise horses that like this kind of property. We have a vineyard very interested in this parcel because the soil and the microclimates fit their requirements. There is no signed contract at the present time on anything. Board Member Mitrano — One thought that retaining something of the character of opportunity... (not audible)... had was that I liked the mixed use. It is the neighborhood as well as providing Board Member Howe - A covenant goes on the other parcel to keep it in agricultural use if this gets approved. Is that correct? Chairperson Wilcox — We would need something in writing to go along with the parcels, which would indicate that the larger parcel, the 69 -acre parcel, if it went through in somewhat this configuration could only be subdivided in a certain way. There are only four lots lefts that could be subdivided out. Mr. Gesslein — We assume that there will be deed restrictions on this remaining large parcel. I am not sure at this point who drafts them up, but they definitely... the intent is to retain or stay within your current zoning requirements. 21 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Board Member Thayer – Even though that changes owners, there are two different owners now for that one lot. Is it still legal to have those 7 lots there? Do you follow what I'm saying? Mr. Kanter - The idea would be to consolidate the tax parcels 23 and 32 prior to the subdivision so that under the original ownership so that then there is the density. Boa rd- Nlmb�e-r_ Thayer_= _=Then_they- could _ turn- ar_ou.nd.- and= sell-_the_ upper- half.. —. - Mr. Kanter – Then simultaneously the subdivision would be for the 7 new building lots on Hayts Road along with the remainder, which could be conveyed to another owner. Board Member Thayer – So the whole thing gets sold? Mr. Kanter – The whole thing will ultimately be sold, other than Mr. Babcock, Mr. Gesslein – Mr. Babcock would like to sell the whole thing and whoever buys either this one or that one will need to come here for whatever it is they want to do or unless it is just a building permit issue and there is no...there may not be any ... the vineyard for example has no intention of subdividing anything. They simply want to have a vineyard, but they would have the right in 10 or 20 or 30 years, if they wanted to, to cut off a couple_ of things and come to you folks for approval to do that. Chairperson Wilcox – If this proceeds again. For those you are aware of the zoning, if you add the two parcels the one below, you get roughly 88 acres. The zoning all means that they can get 12.56 lots which rounds down also requires that they be clustered and they also require size... Mr. Smith – Between 1 and 2 acres for residential. members of the public, just so in question, the large one and ows one lot per 7 acres, which to 12 lots. The Town zoning that the lots be under a certain Chairperson Wilcox – Unless the county health department says the lots need to be bigger to support water and sewer. So what we have here is the 7 lots clustered down here on the lower part leaving that big parcel to the north, but also leaving the owner with the - potential -for -4 additional, roughly 1.5 -2 acre lots. - Again, they would have to be or we would encourage that they be clustered in one part of the larger lot. Mr. Gesslein – We really couldn't keep them under 2 acres. I would love to have 9 two - acre lots in here, in this 18 acres because we can make more money with that, but the problem is that you have two streams going through here and a heavily wooded area and you have to retain or at least a 100 foot street setback and that causes you to have to have some very large lots, 3.5 acre lots, most of which for building purposes are unusable. But I think they have a lot of aesthetics. They are going to be the most desirable lots because they have 3.5 acres, most of which is woods and stream and we 22 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved have one consolidated driveway because they just go so funky down. here at the end. The engineers put in a common driveway to feed three lots. So that is... .Chairperson Wilcox— I must tell-you on the surface lot 7, the one on the east, looks very strange. Mr. Gesslein — It looks very strange, but it complies with the zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — Does it comply? I'm not sure if it complies with the zoning. Does lot 7 comply with the zoning? Mr. Smith — The setback line that is shown there shows it 50 and actually the setback line for the Ag zone is 60 feet. So it either will need to be widened a little bit at that point... Mr. Gesslein — That is something that engineers just didn't pick up on We will just move that back 10 feet and that's not a problem. Mr. Smith — That's the only thing that I noticed. Mr.. Gesslein — That is not a problem. 'Chairperson Wilcox — And the lot adjacent to it and the lot, if they should be approved by this board, will also need to go through the Health Department for approval and... Mr. Hebdon — I assume that the 150 -foot circles are the septic tanks because there is no water or sewer on these parcels. Mr. Gesslein — There is not water and sewer and the Health Department has. already been over the plan and they ... their only concern is we want to dig some holes and do some perk tests and we would like you to drill a well and we'll do all that 'if it looks like something that is going to fly with you folks. Chairperson Wilcox — Where do we put a house on lot 7, ladies and gentlemen? Mr. Gesslein -= You can put it -in -the circle.- - - - - -- - -- -- Board Member Talty — No. Mr. Hebdon — I don't think so. I would assume that they are going to put it right off the corner there. I . Chairperson Wilcox — Is there enough room to put in a house and keep the appropriate setbacks. Mr. Hebdon — I can't tell from this size. 23 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — And 6 may have the same problem. The issue is the septic system, the leech field, the room for the backup septic system, placement of the well and then... Mr. Hebdon — Six would be a little bit easier because you could put it in the back. Bo d: ember_= H_o_wa = 1- think= the- other_thing- that - _was - raised --by_- the - Environmental Review Committee that might be worth a look is that if 17 2, and 3, instead of having separate curbcuts for each whether there be some sort of shared driveway for those lots as well just to reduce the number of driveways coming off of Hayts. Chairperson Wilcox — It would be interesting to see if you could take either lots 1 and 2 or lots 2 and 3 and have them share some sort of a curbcut in the same way. .Mr. Gesslein — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox Just so we don't have those curbcuts along Hayts Road at essentially 155 foot intervals and possibly less. Mr. Gesslein — We can work that out I am sure. That is not a big deal. Chairperson Wilcox What we are looking for is just to show a rectangle on the lot in which the house could be built that meets the zoning requirements in terms of side yard and rear yard setbacks. Prove that you can actually put a reasonable house on that lot. Mr. Gesslein — And that is a good exercise because if the lot lines need to be moved a little bit, now is the time to move them. Board Member Mitrano — George, just out of curiosity, is it an existing vineyard that is interested in that area or someone else? Mr. Gesslein — No. We also have two horse aficionados, who are interested. Mr. Smith — The board actually has a letter... Chairperson Wilcox — I was .going to say... George, are you aware that we received a letter from Peter Trowbridge of Trowbridge & Wolf? Mr. Gesslein — No. Chairperson Wilcox — They are representing a possible purchaser who might want to set up an equestrian facility on the big parcel, but that for right now is a separate issue. 24 Mr. Gesslein — I was not aware of the k contract they have been... contracts have Nothing is settled down. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else with would like to say that this. point, George? Mr. Gesslein =Thank you -1 -am -all -set- Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved tter. I knew that... of course I have seen the been flying back and forth in this sort of thing. questions? Comments? Anything else you Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a public hearing and as such, legally you do not have the right to speak. But, this Planning Board has always given people the opportunity to speak at sketch plan reviews because we like to get your input as early as we can. So having said .that, who would like to address the board? Same rules as you heard me mention earlier. Jon Bosak, 1448 Trumansburg Rd My wife and I just bought a property a week ago that backs onto the upper parcel under discussion here and I just found out about this so I don't have any prepared remarks. have two concerns. One I think has already been addressed and that concern is that we remain backed onto agricultural property and what I am hearing we would. So that is not a big deal. The other concern, since I don't live on Hayts Road, I personally am not concerned with traffic issues there, although others might be. My concern would the be affect on the water table of adding that number of people with wells because it is a pretty good water right now, but there aren't that many people drawing from it. So would be curious to know from the engineers what the expected impact of adding these 7 families would be. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. Christopher Alpha, 260 Hayts Rd am the western boundary of...I am here. I am a little concerned with this plan. First would be traffic concerns. It is already tough to get off of Hayts Road and down into town for work in the morning as it is: Especially more so in the new future with the development going in across from the hospital, at this point in time its 170 + /- units. So a lot more vehicular traffic with another probable access point onto Hayts Road as far as I'm understood, above the cemetery. So traffic concerns are one thing that I have and as well as if they did open up this 60 -foot right -of -way into another possible Town road back into tax parcel 24. -1 -19.12 for 7+ more acres. There is a possibility there for another 12 units of housing, correct? Chairperson Wilcox — Ten. If it is 70 divided by 7 is 10. Mr. Alpha — So there is another lump of cars in the morning. Then currently with this, from an environmental point for a moment, the septic density in proximity to Indian Creek and is that a concern. I don't know if there is any legislation or anything involved 25 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved with that. Some of these 150 -foot diameter circles are pretty close to the stream setback shown on the map there. I don't know if... Mr. Kanter — I think the Health Department is now requiring 100 -foot setbacks from the streams as well. So that would have to be factored in. I think the sketch plan is showing roughly 100 -foot setbacks, but we would have to look a little closer at that. _ Mr. Alpha_ Then obvious runoff concerns. big thing._ - have mainly though is that access road at this point in time and the right -of -way for that because that would place a road right on my property line and right along my whole property line. The logistics of creating such a road are, I think, unknown to those who are proposing the road. You would be building a heck of a bridge across Indian Creek because that piece of land drops into the creekbed pretty good there. That creekbed fills very good in the springtime. I almost lost my whole driveway because it basically came across 40 feet of my driveway. I would like to have some people see in January during the thaw. Then there are two other temporary streams that are sort of seasonal that come through there. They would have to cross all these to get to that other tax parcel. So I would like -the consideration of those thinking these things to perhaps to think of maybe there is another way that you could put in that extra right -of -way. Is it necessary from Hayts Road? (comments not audible) ... I think, basically, that the value of my property would be destroyed with a road that close. If you look out my son or daughter's window or my bathroom window or my kitchen window and instead of woods there are cars going by 30 feet away. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you leave, I think it is reasonable for you to be concerned about that becoming a road, but understand that right now the only thing before us is reserving a 60 -foot wide strip of land for access. Mr. Alpha — Sure, but given the idea of a subdivision going there eventually, which is the provision of why you would have such a... Chairperson Wilcox — Which becomes and if it should become a Town road, the because they would have to accept concerned if they are relevant right now. another subdivision proposal before this board :n you have the Town Board to deal with as well it. I understand your concerns; I'm just not Mr. Alpha — Any road in any shape or form would be a detriment to my valuation. Board Member Mitrano — With all due respect to your concerns, there is no protection for view. Attorney Barney — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Mr. Alpha — Thank you very much. 26 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Denise .Scott Pokorney, 282 Hayts Rd I think stream is a little misleading. This is quite a big gully back here and a lot of water moves through here. I don't know if there is any topographical on this, but it's really quite steep down right in here and quite steep up from here back. Putting a house back in here or in here is going to be on the hillside. It says its fairly level, but its pretty steep back there. This 150... (not audible)... I'm not sure if this line is a connection to this line, but that certainly is what it looks like. Attorney Barney — I think the streamline is above the writing rather than below it. I was wondering the same thing, but that seems to parallel... if you look at the line above it, it kind of parallels the centerline of the stream. I think that the lot 4, at least on this map anyway, technically outside that 100 foot ... this board would see a much more detailed topographical map before they made any decisions. Ms. Pokorney — I guess I have concerns ... (not audible) ... then the 60 foot wide strip.for the right -of -way, even if you are just talking about getting that here for farm equipment, you still are going to need to build a bridge. I have to agree that a right -of -way coming off Trumansburg Road would be much easier. This stream, you can't really see clearly... even for farm equipment... there is an awful lot of water that runs though there. Chairperson Wilcox — There is also a considerable pond back there, too. We have an aerial of the area, which clearly shows the stream as it crosses over. Douglas Pokorney, 282 Hayts Rd guess a little history to go along with hers, I worked this since...I have lived there and worked with Jim Ainslie, Jim Ainslie originally owned that parcel, which he sold to Monroe. So a little bit of history. He never got more than 14 acres of tillable ground out of working that. On this 60 .foot right -of -way, and it can be done if you have enough money, you go about here there is a wet spot that never dries. It is sink hole. Now I deer hunt and turkey hunt.down here a little bit once in a while. Chairperson Wilcox— On their property? Mr. Pokorney = I come around through the back ... this is a gorge. It is not a small stream. It is a gorge with 30 -40 foot sides. I can definitely see this being developed. I'm.not sure-if 4 agree with these particular- outlines, but that is.... and I realize that this is just a preliminary sketch starting the program. The other thing that I noticed... I know that my neighbors above me and I have talked to my neighbors here, there is salt lying through here some place. This house has gotten salt and I know up here on the corner they have salt. Board. Member Mitrano — What do you mean by that, sir? Mr. Pokorney — Its for the wells. That is just a little bit of the history. This starts at nothing, but becomes a pretty good sized gorge when it gets down in this area... already expressed as far as this 100 foot setback as far as trying to keep the Cayuga 27 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Watershed looked at, which I am sure you people, if you study it you will take all of that into consideration. That is mainly what I have to say. Just a little bit of. history because I know this was discussed once before when they were talking about the retirement home and Jim -Ainslie brought up- the fact that he never got more than 14 acres of tillable ground trying to plow this ground up. Board Member Mitrano — What did he grow there? Mr. Pokorney — He had corn and hay and stuff like that at different times. Then .when the deer got bad and ... got bad... he sold it to Monroe. He said that he never got more than 14 acres of tillable ground. Board Member Mitrano — Is tillable ground roughly equivalent to development in terms of houses and things? Mr. Kanter — Not necessarily. No. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Mr. Pokorney — No. Mainly that was just to bring up some certain points of the history of what the land has been and what there is in that area. I don't know if any of you have ever walked back and seen that gorge in the creek. When the water leaves my property and comes down through and goes through this gentleman's ,property that is all the water that goes to Indian Creek that goes to the lake. Water comes from the corner of Iradell down to me to him, comes into the pond of Ralph Cardner, Senior, who originally built the gravel pit, which is on this gentleman's property and when that water comes out of there, that is what goes into Indian Creek as far as watershed purposes. And as this gentleman said, you won't put a culvert with fill, you will put a button with a steel grate to put a bridge across that because it is wide and it does get deep. I mean if someone wants to invest the money and I can understand putting a right -of -way up there, but can understand Babcock's reason to put that because that is access on two roads for development. I can understand that point, but he'll spend money to put that bridge in there. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Anybody else? Steve Dougherty, 245 Hayts Rd I am directly across the street from this planned development. My comments are mostly about water as well, water quantity and quality and the topography of the area. There is a running spring in my front yard, directly across the road from this planned development. It is still running even in this very dry weather. The water level in that pond is actually above the prevailing grade in that area. This whole area is a glacial outwash plan and there is a lot of sandbars and gravelbars and such and underground streams. So there are concerns of what drilling new wells and putting new septic systems in and what affect that might have on water quality because water does seem to move around a lot, ground water there. We have a perennially wet basement in our Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved house and it is only 4 feet below grade. So water in this area is a big concern. I guess that is really the focus of my comment. Thank you. Robert Jackman, -1016 N Cayuga St I am currently the wine maker for King Ferry Winery and I am the person interested in 24. -1 -23 for vineyard development. I have a certain interest in,. seeing this get done in a timely manner so I don't want to raise too many objections. I am overall don't have too many concerns with the proposed subdivision. I do have a dislike for the 60 -foot wide access to the northern parcel. Part of this is more philosophical if we are intending to keep this land in agriculture I don't see it as appropriate to hedge for future development. Even we make that commit to keep it agriculture or we don't. I would be appalled at the prospect of having that a different access road running along between parcels 23 and 19.12. That would be even more objectionable from my standpoint. I would like to answer any questions about this property or anything I know if anyone has any? Board Member Mitrano — Are your objections, sir, aesthetic or are those concerning your use of the land? Mr. Jackman — It is primarily aesthetic. The 60 foot strip runs primarily, again as people mentioned, it crosses open field on the parcel to be developed and then immediately enters into quite a wide creek area. and then continues through a forest area, none of which is valuable agricultural land. It is a very wet area and it is not particularly good forest or agricultural land. Board Member Mitrano - Do you have an alternative route that you would like to suggest to the developer? Mr. Jackman — I would like to suggest that there be a commit to keep parcel 24. — 1- 19.12 in agriculture and not try to hedge toward future development of that parcel. Mr. Kanter - Since this is .a potential, legitimate agricultural use, is there any possibility that is you were successful in obtaining parcel 23 that. you would also be interested in acquiring 19.12 at some point? -Mr. Jackman - -My -only interest in that-would be to control surrounding area because of concerns with running agricultural enterprises and having residential in immediate proximity. I would not have interest in farming that parcel at any time. Board Member Mitrano — But I think you raise a good point. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Mr. Jackman — Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? 29 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved Mr. Bosak — The possibility of running a road along here would raise exactly the same aesthetic problem for me because our property is right here. It would run it right through our back yard. I just wanted to put that on the record. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Mr. Alpha — You always see developments with a loop. So you could get rid of all other access points into it possibly. The one data point on water, it's the only. thing I really wanted to express, though. You do have a lot a drainage coming off of the corner property. Basically my property is the focus point right by that pond there where you have Indian Creek coming down and you have all the drainage up by the corner of Iradell, which is a DEC mapped wetland currently and has a unique plant community. have a master's degree in botany with specialization of ecology evolution , conservation biology and I know my plant and I know that the plant community extnds further than that and it follows that streambed quite well. The affect of the woods having no agricultural value, that may be true and I'm not disputing what this gentleman had to say from a vineyard standpoint or anything like that. It is great soil for that, but the standing timber is a rare thing in these days and open space is as well and they ought to .be thought about. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. We. should point out that when and if George, representing the owners, comes back to this board such things as storrnwater analysis, sedimentation control will be required depending upon how many acres are disturbed, we may run up against erosion or a SPDES permit if I am not mistaken depending upon how much land is disturbed. The other thing that is interesting is that I was thinking that it might be appropriate at some point, when and if you come back, to schedule. a site visit and actually go out there. and actually walk it. And also maybe we would want to see 5-foot contours for example, but certainly we would want to see them, but I think a site visit is probably appropriate. George, is there anything else that you need from .us this evening at this point? Mr. Gesslein — I am all set. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — You have heard us. You have heard residents and you may or may not be back at some point, right? Mr. Gesslein — We'll be back. the concerns.. of the Chairperson Wilcox — To the members of the public, when he comes back, I assume that they will come back asking for some sort of preliminary and or final. subdivision approval. When it happens, there will be a public hearing. The public hearing will be advertised and the in the public hearing you have the legal right to speak and you will have the opportunity to voice your concerns. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:32 p.m. 30 Planning Board Minutes July 19, 2005 Approved MINUTE APPROVAL PB- RESOLUTION -NO. 2005 =072: Approval of Minutes: June 21, 2005 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. _._ RES-0-L- VED--,_- that - -the.- Planning_Boarst- does - hereby - approve . and- adopt- the - -June 21, 2005.minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, NAYS: None. Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kanter gave the .board an overview of the August 2, 2005 agenda. Mr. Kanter mentioned that the Town has talked with the South Hill Business Campus regarding a possible trail alignment for the Aurora Street to upper Buttermilk Path and they have indicated that they will be eager to work with the Town on the future possibility of a trail through the property. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the July 19, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submit L Carrie Coats Whit Deputy Town Clerk i! re 31 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 19, 2005 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Precinct 8 Athletic Fields - Modify Resolution Condition, Game Farm Road. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of modifying condition "l .g." of the Planning Board's Resolution for Site Plan Approval, granted August 5, 2003, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62 -2- 3, 62 -2 -4, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. Said condition required the transport of fill material for construction of Phase II of the athletic fields project off Game Farm Road to be restricted to the hours of 8:30AM to 4:30PM and to follow a specified route to and from the excavation site using Tower Road, Route 366, and Game Farm Road. The applicant is requesting that the hours of operation not be restricted, and that trucks returning to the excavation site from Game Farm Road have flexibility to return by means of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: South Hill Business Campus, 950 Danby Road. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (establishing a baseline of existing uses, buildings, and site layout) and a Recommendation to Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of a portion of the South Hill Business Campus property located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39 -1 -1.1 and 39- 1 -1.2, Industrial and Office Park Commercial Zones. The proposal involves rezoning the existing Industrial Zone portion of the site to a new Planned Development Zone, which would allow a mix of uses allowed in the Industrial, Light Industrial, and Office Park Commercial Zones. South Hill Business Campus, LLC, Andy Sciarabba, Managing Partner, Owner /Applicant; Linda Luciano, Property Manager, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision located on Hayts Road and Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32, Agricultural Zone. The proposal is to consolidate Tax Parcels 24 -1 -23 and 24 -1 -32 into one +/- 87.9 -acre parcel, then subdivide off 7 residential lots (averaging 2.581 acres) along Hayts Road with the remaining + /- 69 acres being maintained as one parcel fronting on Trumansburg Road. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; George J. Gesslein, Agent. 7 3 D 10 Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). Approval of Minutes: June 21, 2005, Other Business: 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, July 19, 2005 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, July 19, 2005, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of modifying condition "1.g." of the Planning Board's Resolution for Site Plan Approval, granted August 5, 2003, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62 -2 -3, 62 -2 -4, 62 -2 -5, 62 -2 -6, Low Density Residential Zone. Said condition required the transport of fill material for construction of Phase II of the athletic fields project off Game Farm Road to be restricted to the hours of 8:30AM to 4:30PM and to follow a specified route to and from the excavation site using Tower Road, Route 366, and Game Farm Road. The applicant is requesting that the hours of operation not be restricted, and that trucks returning to the excavation site from Game Farm Road have flexibility to return by means of Ellis Hollow Road, Pine Tree Road, and Route 366. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Brenda Smith, Civil Engineer, Agent 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (establishing a baseline of existing uses, buildings, and site layout) and a Recommendation to Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of a portion of the South Hill Business Campus property located at 950 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39 -1 -1.1 and 39- 1 -1.2, Industrial and Office Park Commercial Zones. The proposal involves rezoning the existing Industrial Zone portion of the site to a new Planned Development Zone, which would allow a mix of uses allowed in the Industrial, Light Industrial, and Office Park Commercial Zones. South Hill Business Campus, LLC, Andy Sciarabba, Managing Partner, Owner /Applicant; Linda Luciano, Property Manager, 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, July 11, 2005 Publish: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: July 19, 2005 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME �3rehcLa� �m.'� f` /mil op f�LJ C � GI •mot c� joy) zosak, PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION NJ4 2Dl f��- rlohheys S'L'rvicr�, 144 T b L r �ti�i.✓rFrf P44411'?w' 1 16 _ c 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, July 19, 2005 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: July 11, 2005 July 13, 2005 6... dt..a., 09� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of July 2005, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County O6 Commission Expires December 26, 20_„