Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-11-01FILE DATE it �� zc REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, 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; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member, Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Members Kevin Talty, Board Members Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Towns Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planners Chris Balestra, Planner; Tee -Ann Hunter, Town Clerk OTHERS Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Bill Stebbins, Cornell Transportation; Jacqueline Scahill, Ithaca College; Brenda Smith, Cornell University; Sarah Lamere, 1570 Slaterville Rd; Wally Wiggins, 961 Taughannock Blvd; Ed Kretill, 1151 Danby Road; Deborah Seligman Kretill, 1151 Danby Road; John Yengo, 1147 Danby Road; Nancy Batistella. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:03 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 October 24, 2005 and October 26, 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 October 26, 20058 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 Mr. Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. CONSIDERATION OF DESIGNATION OF .THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY AND THE DETERMINIATION OF A POSITIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROPOSED 10= YEAR TRANSPORATION IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND THE ASSOCIATED TRANSPORATION- FOCUSED GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED IMPACT STATEMENT REFERRRED TO AS TGEIS BEING JOINTLY UNDERTAKEN BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY. AND THE TOWN OF ITHACA@ Mr. Wilcox The TGEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding, the campus related to the increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TMIS, which is the 10 -year transportation impact mitigation strategies will evolve in response to the feedback obtained from the TGEIS process and. may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multimodal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf RLA principle in charge. Kathryn do you wish to make a statement this evening? Ms. Wolf — I'm just here to answer questions if you have any. Mr. Wilcox Ladies and gentlemen do you have questions on the materials in front of us? We have a memo . from ]on, we have a draft resolution, we have the full environmental impact assessment that's been provided, and we have various letters and correspondence concurring with. the Town of Ithaca Planning Board acting as lead agency for the environmental review. Mr. Connernan — Did you get the idea the City was a little hesitant to let us go ahead with that? Mr. Wilcox - Yes. Jonathan had conversations with me and we had.talked about it at our last meeting, about the possibility of a letter with my name on it whether it swayed them or not I don't know but they did vote. Even our own Town Board voted 4 to 3. We have concurrence from everybody within the time frame? Mr. Kanter - Right. The concurrence letter was sent out September 12th and there's a 30 -day turn- around..time for comments to be sent in so that passed a while ago. Mr. Wilcox — Any questions or comments from over here? Mr. Kanter :— No. If there are any questions on the resolution we just, it's to cover designation of lead agency, there's a second resolved for the positive declaration of environmental significance, publishing the official notice, and finally to agree that there be a public 'scoping process. Katherine - 'Have you read the resolution? Ms. Wolf -Yes. r) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Wilcox _ You're nodding your head that means you're fine? Okay. Ladies and :l gentlemen would anybody wish to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item even thought it's not a public hearing? Ms. Hoffmann — I just had one comment and you may have already said this, Jonathan 11 Kanter, but butl I didn't hear the last part that you said. Was it something about public notification "notice? Mr. Kanter About the public scoping process? That's the last resolved. Ms. Hoffmann — Last time when we talked about this, I asked if we could, I don't remember if I asked for a list of ways that you were going to notify the public of the scoping sessions and about this whole process in general, but if I didn't ask it outright last time I know I talked about wanting to see that and I would like to see such a list. Who are you going to try to contact and how? How are you going to get the public to come here and take part in the scoping process? You remember that we talked about that before, Ms. Wolf? Ms. Wolf Yes, I do recall, Eva that we had a discussion about the importance of engaging the public and really trying to make a concerted effort to get people here. We do have a rather extensive stakeholders list and I'm trying to remember if that was included in your packets. Ms. Mitrano — It was. Ms. Hoffmann — It was not in the packet that I got. Mr. Kanter - I think it was in the initial packet. Ms. Wolf — Perhaps the initial packet. Ms. Mitrano — It was in the presentation, I .recall it. Ms. Wolf — Correct it was in the presentation. What I didn't know was whether or not it was actually distributed, hard copy, in your packets. Ms. Mitrano'— No. Ms. Wolf — Okay. So Eva I can report that as you know we have formed a resource committee which includes Jonathan Kanter, Cathy Valentino, and Herb Engman from the Town. I believe those are the three Town representatives on that committee. And there are representatives from all of the surrounding municipalities, the County, 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Fernando de Aragon. So that's a working group, a technical working group and they have reviewed the stakeholder's list and made additional suggestions for additions to that stakeholders list. So that has continued to develop and evolve and that list will be, we can certainly get you a copy of that.. We're always open to suggestions for additional people to be added to that list. The intention is to use that as a contact list for scoping and at other appropriate times throughout the process and then I think as I mentioned in the presentation we also when we're actually gathering information. we are hoping that there might be times when we would draw on specific groups. Ped groups, bicycle groups, whoever are the appropriate user groups who could actually participate in gathering information or participating in surveys. We haven't defined all those information gathering techniques yet, but the intent is definitely to engage those groups in that process. So I think at this point that's where that stands. And we can certainly get you a copy of that list. Ms. Hoffmann — Yes it would be helpful I think for all of us to see it so that based on that we can suggest additional ways of contact the public. Ms. Wolf — Absolutely. Mr. Kanter Then also a couple of other ways. We'll probably do a press release and direct contact with media to make sure it gets out. And then also a website is being set up by Cornell which will be publicized when it's set up and that will be linked to the Town and City websites and other ITCTC website. Ms. Hoffmann — Good, thank you. Declaration of Environmental &yniRcance, Cornell University transportation- MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano WHEREAS: Y. Cornell University has submitted. a report outlining a proposal for a "transportation - focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) and Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS)'; dated August 26, 2005, being undertaken by Cornell University in cooperation with the Town of Ithaca. The t -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the information obtained from the t -GEIS, 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED and may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes Cornell University, Applicant, Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge (Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP); Martin, Alexiou, Bryson (Transportation Consultants), and 2. The proposed transportation- focused GEIS would be a generic environmental impact statement that will identify, examine and evaluate Cornell s transportation - related impacts and potential mitigations for several hypothetical population growth scenarios over the next decade. The GEIS is a tool available under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, commonly referred to as SEQR. Unlike an Environmental Impact Statement, a GEIS is flexible enough to explore hypothetical or alternative scenarios, and 3 The Town of Ithaca is the logical municipality to serve as lead agency in the t- GEIS initiative. Its boundaries encircle the City of Ithaca and abut most of the county's other municipalities On an average workday, 80 percent of Cornell employees travel through the Town of Ithaca on their daily commute. The town has a key role in the county's overall transportation system, and is in the process of completing its own transportation plan, and 46 The Town of Ithaca Planning Department, on behalf of the Planning Board, distributed a Lead Agency concurrence letter to potential involved and interested agencies on September 12, 2005, and received no objections to the Town. of Ithaca Planning Board serving as Lead Agency on this matter, and 5. The' Planning Board has reviewed the report referenced above, which includes a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, prepared by Cornell University, a description of the proposed action, and a cover letter (August 26, 2005) indicating that the applicant proposes to prepare a transportation- focused Generic EIS and is requesting a positive declaration of environmental significance for the Planning Boards consideration, and also has reviewed Part 2 of the Full EAF, prepared by the Planning staff, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby establishes itself as lead agency to coordinate. the environmental review of the proposed transportation- focused GEIS and Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a positive determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, confirms that a transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t- -GEIS) will be prepared, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests that the Town Planning Department. duly file and publish a Notice of Positive Declaration pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617 12, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: That Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board have agreed that a public scoping process will be initiated to determine the scope and content of the t- GEIS, and that Cornell University will prepare a draft written scope of issues to be addressed', in the t' GEIS, and that the Planning Board will schedule a public hearing on said scoping document to be held before this Board at the earliest practicable date upon receipt of said draft scoping document. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimous /y. PUBLIC HEARING SEQR DETERMINATION FOR THE PROPOSED LA TOURELLE ROOM EXPANSION AND SPA ADDITION MODIFICATIONS LOCATED AT 1150 DANBY ROAD. Mr. Wilcox Wally ' °are you speaking or do you have an agent representing you? Walter Wiggins 961 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca Mr. Wilcox - Brief overview of what's being proposed. Mr. Wiggins - It's mostly technical relating to storm water disposal through a different and what we think is more efficient system than was originally proposed. There's a request to modify the parking areas by exchanging some space, putting the parking 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED areas closer to the restaurant and taking them off of what was a tennis court, which was where they were originally proposed. One of the problems we found is that people didn't want to walk so far and climb the hill to come up and so we relocated the parking lot. I think those are the two major things that I'm familiar with. Mr. Wilcox 7 Questions with regard to the environmental review? Ms. Hoffmann — Yes, I have several questions. One has to do with parking spaces. When I count up, you mentioned in the papers, or rather it's Michael Smith who mentions in the papers that there are going to be 126 spaces. Do I read that correctly, Mike? Mr. Smith — Right. Ms. Hoffmann — When I count them up on the plan I get 136 not including the 4 for handicapped drivers, it would make 140. Mr. Wiggins — I'm happy to reduce the space to the 126. We put extra to make sure that everyone felt that we were doing it adequately but we don't want any more spaces than are required. Ms. Hoffmann — Well, there's just a discrepancy and I want to have it clear what we're talking about when we are approving or disapproving a resolution. Mr. Wiggins — Sure. Mr. Smith - I just want to make sure that you're not counting the label of 12 spaces that is on the tennis courts. Ms. Hoffmann. — I did not. Mr. Smith — Okay. Ms., Hoffmann — I.can tell you what I counted. I counted the 16 spaces that are west of the tennis courts. Then I counted the 9 spaces south of the La Tourelle building. And then there are 8 spaces a little further east south of the La Tourelle building and 11 spaces south of that. Then there are 12 plus 12 plus 11 spaces in that new expansion of parking west of the barn. Then there are 7 spaces west of the restaurant. 18 spaces, old ;ones, south of the restaurant. 20 new proposed places toward .Route 96, and then the 4 spaces for handicapped outside La Tourelle Inn in the traffic circle there. And when I add that up I get 136 plus 4, which is 140. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Wilcox 7 I haven't added, is anybody adding? Ms. Hoffmann — You can check my addition, it's right here. Meanwhile, I'll ask another question. The other .question is I was up there today to look at it and I had my doubts about these 20 proposed spaces even before I went up to look because I remember that as a beautiful green area next to the old pond you have south of the restaurant. I was very disappointed to see that there has been fill put there already even though those parking spaces haven't been approved. Mr. Wiggins — They're not being used. Ms. Hoffmann — No, but the fill is there. Mr. Wiggins — Okay. The reason that's near is that they had to remove some soil to accommodate the storm water and other facets of the site plan and instead of taking the soil all the way off the property and then bringing it back if it was approved, it's temporarily there pending approval. If it's not approved why then we'll remove it and put it somewhere else. Ms. Hoffmann— In a way I suppose it helped me visualize how it will look when it is finished and I don't particularly like the way it looks. Mr. Wiggins — What's really happened, Ms. Hoffmann, is that during the course of construction it had become a defacto parking lot. Ms. Hoffmann — I understand that. Mr. Wiggins — And so for a long period of time, until the past month or two when they were finalizing the site plan, the cars were parked there on the lawn and it seemed like an appropriate place for them to be so when it came time to remove all. the soil and extra gravel and soil that was on site we decided we would store it there pending approval or disapproval as.you may chose before we did anything further. You'll, notice its just soil there. No one's parking there.. Ms. Hoffmann — But it's not lying in a heap, it's graded in the shape of this parking lot. Mr. Wiggins — Yes because indeed if it's approved that's where it would be. If it's not approved then we have to take the soil off and dump it somewhere. Ms. Hoffmann — I just think that's an unfortunate location. It just doesn't make it look very attractive from the road, your whole development. Ms. Mitrano — I actually agree with you. E;? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Ms. Hoffmann — That's the other thing I have a questions about. The other question is I noticed that both in what you wrote and sent in to us and on the plan, it shows that there's a stream along the southern boundary of your property, which is being realigned. It says proposed realignment of stream and it's being taken. south of the westernmost pond. And I don't understand that. I thought when there's drainage through a stream it goes into a pond for a reason. It goes to the pond so that whatever particulates there are coming through the stream will settle in the pond before the water is released and then to go into Buttermilk Falls State Park. Mr. Wiggins— I can't answer your questions. I don't know. of, in fact, any relocation of any stream.' Ms. Hoffmann — Well it says that right on this drawing, 'proposed realignment of stream ". Well let me read what it says in your letter too if I can find that. It will take me a while to find it so go ahead and ask other questions. Mr. Wilcox — I counted parking spaces and I get 128. Ms. Hoffmann — You do? Mr. Kanter - I counted and I got 125, twice. The Board discussed the number of parking spaces and arrived at 128. Ms. Mitrano = I'm grateful that Eva takes the time and consideration to give the detail that she does. I rely on you, Eva, to do that. 1. Mr. Wilcox While Eva is looking, Dan, do you want to make a comment on the material that was in front of us when we arrived? Mr. Walker That was a modification of a stormwater management plan and it's just a cover sheet' and a couple of the plan sheets. Ms.. Mitrano — I agree with Eva. Mr. Walker— That's a storm water management plan modified to show the revised site plan. And everything is in order. On that stream, I believe that was on the original plan or one of the revisions, maybe the second revision instead of the third revision here. That, to provide sufficient storage for the water that is coming from the site itself, the disturbed area of the site, they're diverting the natural stream away from that pond to provide additional storage volume for the water from the construction area and from the disturbed area. That stream was flowing in that area before the pond was ever 9 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED there and I'm sure that's why they put the pond there but they needed to divert that away so they would have sufficient volume in that pond for storm water management. Ms. Hoffmann — What. are you saying with regard to my concern that the stream bypasses the pond rather than the water from the stream going into the pond? Mr. Walker The original pond was basically a pass through pond. It was.a constant. level pond; it wasn't designed to hold any flood storage. In other words as the water came in from the stream it would go directly out without any major change in elevation of the pond. It wasn't designed to hold back any of that water. So they're diverting the portion of the watershed that's not on the disturbed area that is in its normal channel. Before . that pond was there, this stream flowed down through that watercourse. Mr. Wilcox — Let me try to do it, the stream is not carrying any runoff from the disturbed area. Mr. Walker'- No. If you look at the stream, that stream originates to the south of the property and then flows onto the property and then just bypasses that pond.. You can see on one, the plans there's a pipe from the upper pond down into the lower pond, and from the storm water system there so that all the site runoff is being controlled by those two ponds. Mr. Wilcox - Eva's question remains though, I just want to hear you say it, that there's no need to filter the water that's in that stream. Mr. Walker Right, because that stream is not coming off the disturbed area. Mr. Wilcox - Thank you. Ms. Hoffmann — And even with this proposed new parking lot for 20 cars there's a' little depression between the driveway and where the fill for that parking lot is put up now and I assume that some drainage will happen there and go on down towards the... Mr. Walker — No, the drainage for that parking lot will go into that upper pond. Ms. Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Walker - It all flows into that upper pond. Ms. Hoffmann — All right. 10 A PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Walker — That stream actually starts in the property to the south. There's quite a wet area on the property to the south. Ms. Hoffmann — Okay. That wasn't clear from the drawing and that's why I was concerned that maybe some additional water would come and then bypass the westernmost pond and go into Buttermilk Falls. Mr. Walker — All the water from the disturbed area will flow. into that upper pond from that new parking lot. Ms. Hoffmann — Mike, do you know where, I'm sure I read some mention of this stream changing location in some paper here. Do you remember seeing it? Mr. Smith — Where it was written? Ms. Hoffmann —.Yes. Mr. Smith — I know it's on the plans, I don't remember seeing it written. Ms. Hoffmann — Not in the text? All right. Thank you for explaining to me how it works. Mr. Wilcox - Tracy, did you want to make a comment? Ms. Mitrano — I only just wanted to say I'm not sure the design that Mr. Wiggins is suggesting for this proposed parking space that Eva was talking about is actionable in the sense of being within our jurisdiction to object, but it's not as pretty as it was. Mr. Wiggins — You're absolutely right and I trust that you may believe that we will do it in the most'' 'aestheti'cally pleasing way we can. I hope you find the overall project to be aesthetically pleasing. I agree and the problem was that we are faced with the desire of the people who want to use the facility. When we sent them down to where the tennis court is they just didn't want to go and so as a practical matter we tried to find the space that would be least offensive to everyone and most practical for the use of the facility. I can assure you that we will do everything possible to make that a pleasing area. I think it's within the bounds of our right to locate it there. It looks very ugly at the moment with a big pile of brown dirt. I certainly won't look that way when we are finished. Ms. Mitrano — I'm sure that's true. I agree it's within your bounds. Mr. Wiggins: — I share your view that it's not as attractive as it used to be. We'll try to make it that way when we finish. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Ms. Hoffmann — Well maybe one of the things that we can suggest that you do to make it more_ attractive if that parking lot has to go there is to put some plantings around it to shield the view of the cars. Mr. Wiggins — I would expect to do that. throughout the whole facility. It's hard begins to be used and properly viewed. I 1 11 something on paper that says this is what not until we have a chance to demonstrate As I think you will note we have done that to say what is the. best way to do it until it don't know what else to suggest. We can put we will do if that's required, but I would hope what we are doing. Ms. Hoffmann — Well, actually we usually do require things like that .ahead of time rather than 'waiting to see what an applicant is going to do, so I think if we all feel that plantings would be a useful thing, we would probably add that in. the resolution. Ms. Mitrano — But I would be willing to add it in. a very general way. I think this applicant has demonstrated a strong. desire to create an aesthetic surrounding, for his business purposes not to please the Town Planning Board. And so I wouldn't want to sit here and pre -judge particulars before Mr. Wiggins and his business have an opportunity; to really survey the entirety of their landscape. So I would be willing in this case to give some latitude. I don't feel it is necessary to tell them the number of trees or number of bushes that they need to put there. Ms. Hoffmann — Not necessarily, but a mention in the resolution that that is something that we would like to see. Ms. Mitrano — Agreed. Mr. Conneman --I agree with you. If. Wally is going to do it anyway, put it in there. Mr. Wilcox-. We're still on SEQR. Any other questions or comments? PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -103; SEQR, Site Plan Modification, La Toure/% 1 -4,2 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty WHEREAS: 1. Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to the previously approved plan for the spa ,and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 14.2, Planned 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves changes to the proposed stormwater facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant, and 2. 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 Site Plan Modification, and 3. The Planning . Board, on November 1, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Landscape and Paving" revised 1 - 9116105, "Site and Demolition Plan "revised 3 - 9109105, "Site and Demolition Plan "revised 4 - 9130105, prepared by Gary L. Wood, P.E., and other materials, and 4: The Town Planning staff has. recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan 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: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Ta/ty. NA YS .• None ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING For Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to the Previously Approved Plan for the Spa and Room Addition Project at the La Tourelle County Inn Located at 1150 Danby Road, New York State Route 9613, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel #36.- 1 -4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. Mr. Wilcox - Proposal involves changes to the proposed storm water facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the landscaping and lighting. Walter ). Wiggins, owner / applicant 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Questions or comments with regard to the site plan specifically? There being none, Wally, would you take a seat please? Ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing if you wish to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item we ask you to please step to the microphone, give us your name and address, and we will be most interested to hear what you have to say. Ed Kretill, 1151 Danby Road Mr. Kretill - We live directly across from Mr. Wiggins property. Deborah Seligman Kretill, 1151 Danby Road Mr. Kretill We agree with Ms. Hoffmann's and Ms. Mitrano's assessment. We don't want to see a parking lot across from our house. We have been very accepting of all the changes that he's made to the property. I have no objections to somebody trying to grow their business. The spa, the connector, the splitting of the property, but the parking lot as it stands now, the 20 extra spaces is going to impact our view, it is going to impact our property value. We are going to get light traffic coming from that lot as it exits on to the main. road right into our living room. When cars aren't there we are going to see a lot.. I believe that Mr. Wiggins has enough property that he can afford to do this in another way that will not negatively impact us. Ms. Kretill — Again, the same concern. My largest concern is that the exiting area for the parking. lot, the headlights, we already have headlights coming from the actual on to the road, but now we are going to be having headlights that come from the parking area into our living room and then again once people exit and go onto 96B. Again, also just concerned with the fact that work was started prior to this meeting. We've sort of watched this because, well, we live across the street and we can see it from half of our house. That parking lot is a view from at least 4 of. our rooms, 3 or 4 of our rooms. So we've just watched this over time. We had no objection when it was a temporary thing because we understood what was happening. His employees needed some place to park, but finding out now that it is going to be a permanent thing, we are afraid of how it will affect our future sale of the house, our overall view, and just not liking it a whole lot. Mr. Kretill — And I also disagree it was brought off site and not come in for that week and dui filled, and it's been rollered. It we're just concerned about that Mr. Wilcox — All set? somewhat with how the fill was dropped there: Most of as a result of the construction, just from seeing trucks Tnping stuff there. And so it's been marked, it's been is ready to go without any approval from the Board. So too. MAI PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Kretill - That's about it. Ms. Kretill —Yes. Mr. Wilcox'—,, Thank you. Anybody else? John Yengo, 1147 Danby Road (talking for himself and Lillian Yengo) I live across the street from the lovely La Tourelle and Lebarge and we're sitting here treating this as though this is something new. These folks behind me, their house is over 100 years old so their home. was there before that parking lot is going there. I used to own that house. I sold it to them. The house next to it, I've lived there since 1962 way before there was any concept to have a bed and breakfast. We played baseball with Reverend Jimmy Miller right across the street there. He lived in the house that wasn't a restaurant. So please don't deal with this from a new perspective. There were plans ;set forth that La Tourelle and the restaurant must adhere to. La Tourelle was not supposed to be a restaurant. We have kept silent and allowed him to have banquet facilities there and to have a full service kitchen. He doesn't have a restaurant there but he has hospitality activities there. We have taken our time and enjoyed his growth seen massive pieces of business parked along the driveways, parked in the street, turn!' around" in our driveways where we have to replace the macadam because of all the traffic that goes there and so we have tolerated this. Neither they nor myself .are going to go anywhere. We'll probably in those facilities, .but the thing is, this is the most discourteous thing that he did when he built that 20 -car parking lot. He has built it. Mrs. Hoffmann is absolutely right. That thing is shaped, it's been tampered, and it's ready for black top. That is not soil. That is gravel, which was brought in to make that parking lot. If you had time to visit the place, which I know Eva did, but I don't know about the rest of you, you can see that there is absolutely plenty of room for parking. He has over 60 acres of land. His whole project there is about a three and a half job. Their property is about 3- acres. My property's about 3- acres. So we just have a simple home there that's being consumed by all this hospitality activity. We don't object to that, we're!just trying to sight for you a comparison. That parking lot doesn't need to be in front of that pond. We look forward to seeing the herring, the ducks. We have a pond. They swim from their pond, to our pond, and back. It doesn't need to be there he's got plenty of goddamned room around that place. 11 Mr. Wilcox Sir. Mr. Yengo Pardon me. He's got plenty of room around that place. The excuse of omitting a tennis court, for crying out loud, is absolutely falseful. You can go there and look for yourself. There's plenty of room for parking. And I'm sorry it will inconvenience his restaurant customer, but he might inconvenience his staff by having them park on the lower level instead of the upper level. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Now I'll get back to my notes. I think there should be some reference on your part to the original premise of allowing a bed and breakfast in that particular area. That's a special zone for Wally and his wife. It's a special zone and there were special requirements that they weren't allowed to do certain things and I know darn well that one of them was to put a parking lot in front of those buildings. I wish, and this is a personal statement, that when you start approving things for people that you take the time to visit the sites, cause I know, I can feel that you haven't done it. And please don't hesitate to come to my door and knock on the door and say hello. There's only like four of .us for crying out loud that are impacted there. You've got two of them here. One's in Europe. That parking lot, and I am.picking on the parking, is larger, the space itself, is larger than the restaurant. It's larger than the extension to create the spa. It's larger than the barn, in which he has four apartments. It's half as large as the entire B &B. That's my observation from just.looking at the drawing. These owners are patient, they have the resources, and they can wait for the right timing to get their bidding. You let. them have 20 spaces today; somewhere down the line they'll have 60 more. Keep that parking hidden, out of sight, out of view. You've listed my property as one of the top seventeen properties that you must preserve. I'm number 17 that you can't do anything on the property, you just have to enjoy it. So I cut a lot of lawn. I can't have multiple residences. So, I think I've said what I have to say. This is not a personal vendetta against my friend Wally, it's just that like my boss on occasion they make stupid' moves, and that's a stupid move. Mr. Wilcox Thank you, sir. Mr. Yengo - Thank you. Mr. Wilcox Would anybody else like to address the Planning Board this evening? There being no one 'I will close the public hearing at.7:45 p.m. Mr. Wiggins — A major problem I have is that I think they're right and I think we were wrong. This came about because we had 117, as I recall, 117 parking spaces. We were advised and properly so by your team that we needed I think it was 123. In the search for those extra 6 places we got caught up in the idea of making it a more an efficient area without perhaps taking into consideration the negative impact on our neighbors. So I would want to withdraw that part of the application. I certainly, in the interests of being a good neighbor, especially to those folks who have spoken and properly so, I think it's in the best interests of the community and my neighbors that we withdraw that part of the application, perhaps allowing us to just put 6 cars there to meet the original 117 that was required as opposed to the 125 that we ultimately produced. I would like to avoid, if at all possible, having to delay some kind of a decision because we can't get our occupancy permit for the hotel until the site is approved and so we're sitting there with a hotel ready to use awa.iting your kind 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED approval one way or the other. Perhaps if there could be some modification that would accommodate the, what appear to be the needs if not the desires, or the desires if not the needs of my neighbors, I would like to at least reduce the size of that area to the absolute minimum additional number of spaces that are required to fulfill the demands of the law. Ms. Hoffmann — Can you think of some other place where you could fit in those 6 spaces if it turns out that we feel they are absolutely necessary? Mr. Wiggins — Yes, the original thought Mrs. Hoffmann was that they would, there's ample space down by the parking lot that was not used that we could have added the 6 to 8 different spaces. Again what happened was in the interim people began to park in that area and it seemed like a reasonable place to put it. I can appreciate now that it may be reasonable from an efficiency point of view but from an aesthetic point of view it's disturbing to my neighbors and I don't want to disturb my neighbors. So perhaps if those additional 6 spaces could be approved in that area without disturbing my neighbors that could solve the problem. Ms. Hoffmann What do you mean by that area? You mean the... Mr. Wiggins — I don't even. know haw many, maybe you can tell me how many spaces are allocated in that area by the restaurant. Ms. Mitrano — 20 Mr. Wiggins — Am I correct, Mike, that we had to go from 117 to 123 to meet. Mr. Smith - The Zoning Ordinance calls for approximately 125 when you start adding u the restaurant, the inn, the spa, the apartments kind of collectively it comes up to approximately that. Mr. Wilcox -125. And the number right there now is 128. Mr. Wiggins — We had 117 before we made this addition so we would need 8 spaces and my suggestion would be that we be allowed to put 8 spaces where the 20 spaces are and that should, I hope, be satisfactory to everyone and if not we can put the 8 spaces down when the tennis courts are. Although I would not like to do that I'd be happy to do that. Mr. Wilcox — A couple things before I forget. Mr. Yengo, if you have concerns about the operations on the property which, you are correct, are governed by a special spot zoning if you will referred to as Planned Development Zone #1, if you have questions about what's going on there and whether it's consistent with the zoning or not you 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED should talk to the Town Board. I don't have the Zoning Ordinance in front of me, which says what is allowed and what is not allowed. Second thing is, I believe Wally this is the third time you've been here with regard to the spa and hotel room additional? Mr. Wiggins — Yes .sir. Mr. Wilcox I think we approved,. then you modified, now you're back again for a modification. Mr. Wiggins; — Yes, I think that's correct. Mr. Wilcox 7 I don't want anybody to think that this is all brand new. This is essentially the third time we've seen this particular proposal. Mr. Conneman — But it's the first time we've seen the 20. Mr. Wilcox - Correct. Actually we've seen how many parking spaces last time, 164? Mr. Smith — That's what it started at. Mr. Wilcox — Yes, it started at 164, we're down to 125, 128. A perfect lead in. We can grant up to a 20% reduction in the number of parking spaces. Okay? We have that authority. It's one of the few areas where we have discretion, where the Zoning Ordinance says you must do this. The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows us to grant up to a 20% reduction in the number of parking spaces. Now, you, as the applicant would be best served by providing us with something, which says here why I don't need the number of parking spaces, called for in the Zoning. Mr. Wiggins — I could say that, but I think it's not unreasonable to have demanded that number. The occasions are rare but they do exist when there is a major function at the hotel and at the restaurant at the same time so that it's not unreasonable I think to ask for those 125 spaces. Mr. Wilcox — Okay. Here's the problem right now then. We have 128 the way I counted it up. Ms. Hoffmann — And I found my mistake, by the way. Mr. Wilcox — Everybody is in agreement that the current plan shows 128 spaces. Zoning requires 125. So we can eliminate 3 spaces and move 17 is the way I read it, Wally. 11 69 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Wiggins — Whichever number seems reasonable to this Board to allow to remain in this area that has become controversial I think that would be appreciated. If that down not seem fair to you we will eliminate the entire parking space and we'll put the added spaces that are required down by the tennis court. Ms. Mitrano`- Wally, I think it's a fair request that you're making, but I'm going to request that'' it be moved down to the tennis court. Mr. Conneman — I am too, Wally. Mr. Wiggins Certainly it's not an unreasonable position and we can do it. Mr. Conneman _ Your neighbors are important. Mr. Wiggins,:—. I acknowledge that. It got a little emotional there for a moment but I think we've passed that, I hope Mr. Yengo. Certainly I want to accommodate my neighbors as best I can. Ms. Hoffmann — The other thing is, it was called a special land use district when this was set up originally for you to build La Tourelle and I don't remember either what the special limitations on what you could and could not do on the land, but if in fact it is true that you were not supposed to have any parking on. the east side of any of the buildings... Mr. Wiggins — I don't think there's anything that says anything like that. Mr. Barney = The requirement was that you had to have a permit for any parking places you built and that the site plan had to be approved by this Board, but there was no restriction or limitation specified in the law that it had to be in a particular area, or couldn't be in a particular other area. Ms. Hoffmann — Okay. But I really think too that if you were to just keep a few parking spaces in this area with the driveway going into it and the driveway going out to it, it would disturb more land than necessary. I would also suggest that you eliminate the fill that you put in there and restore that area to the way it was before and put the extra parking spaces that are needed in some other part of your land.. Mr. Wiggins; — Certainly if there is to be no parking there, there is no reason for that soil to be deposited there so I don't have any problem with that. Mr. Wilcox - Wally mentioned approvals necessary tonight and related that back to the spa addition and the additional rooms. Can he operate under temporary certificates of occupancy? I I . 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Smith I believe he has temporary certificates for some of the building already. Mr. Wilcox In terms of the additions, in terms of the spa additions and /or the room additions? Mr. Smith — Right. Mr. Wilcox Because here's what I'm thinking. You move the parking you change the drainage again, right? I'm sitting here just thinking about do I want to... Mr. Thayer — Where are those 17 places going? Mr. Wilcox — Where are they going to wind up, how does that effect the drainage, do I want to provide some sort of conditional approval tonight or do we want to say, Wally we agree with you, move the 20 or the 17 back behind, but let's see some new drawings reflecting where they are. Ms: Mitrano ';— I want to find a way that this man can get his business going. I have never seen an applicant be so accommodating to public opinion. Mr. Wilcox — That was my point. I think, he can runs his business through... Ms. Mitrano Yeas, I want to find a way that he can get the permit. Especially under the circumstances of his accommodation. Mr. Barney - Do you have a temporary permit? Mr. Wiggins.— I have a temporary permit for the first floor and the third floor, but I I'm advised by Mr. Williams that I can't get a full permit or permanent permit until the site plan is approved is approved and I don't have a temporary permit for the middle floor at the moment. But I don't think that's related to the site plan. I think that's related because we hadn't yet completed everything that had to be completed on that floor.. I understand I cannot get a permanent occupancy permit until the site plan has been approved. Mr. Barney I think, that's correct, but you have the temporary, which allows you to operate pending getting that permanent approval. Mr. Wiggins — That's fine and I'm happy to bring back whatever you think is appropriate to satisfy you that we've taken the proper concern. I just don't want to not be able to open the balance of the rooms and the little cafe we have. 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr., Barney, — Dan am I correct there's no reason why the temporary occupancy permit couldn't be issued for the middle floor? Wally is saying that he's got one for the first, floor and one for the third floor. Mr. Walker — The middle floor is the spa part, or is that the restaurant part? Mr. Smith= Just rooms. Mr. Barney', — There are some thing that are incomplete but once they're completed for code purposes the site plan doesn't necessarily preclude... Mr. Walker;, — I think we could issue a temporary certificate with the understanding it wouldn't be permanent until everything else is right. Mr. Barney; — We all understand that, but that gives you time then to come back here with the last drawings to get the permanent before the temporary expires. Mr. Wiggins — How long does that temporary permit last? Mr. Walker — I think they're usually 6 months. Mr. Wiggins — Okay, that would give us a chance then to put things in, in the spring. Landscaping and so forth so when we come back we would have a proposal. Mr. Barney I think you want to do it the other way... Mr. Wilcox - I think you want to be back in as quick as you can, which I assume would be probably a minimum of 4 weeks and maybe closer to 6. Mr. Wiggins — That's fine, whatever you say, we'll be back. Mr. Kanter — January. Mr. Walker,;— So what you're saying is we'd like to see a revised site plan... Mr. Wilcox 7 Well I haven't gotten a sense of the Board yet but I'm thinking revised site plan with revised drainage that would have. to go with it. Drainage would have to change a little bit if you move the parking lot. Mr. Walker So that he could be at the second January meeting. I'm just trying to set a date. Mr. Wilcox We can't set a date until we have the materials in hand obviously. 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Kanter — The guideline is submit the plans 30 days before the scheduled meeting. Mr. Walker But what I'm asking is let's have a commitment that if that deadline is not met, I mean I think 30 days to do a set of revised plans is reasonable for this type of a plan. If we! , don't get it in 30 days we will rescind the temporary c.o. Mr. Wilcox Wally does have an approved site plan. Mr. Walker — No, but he's revised it. He hasn't built the approved site plan. Mr. Smith - But he hasn't gotten an approval yet to change it either. Mr. Wilcox — So he has an approved site plan. Mr. Walker So if he was going to be building the new site plan he's got a lot of work to do before I would consider... Mr. Wilcox That's right he cannot build to any new site plan. The only thing he can do is legally building to what was approved last time he was here. Mr. Barney I think Wally understands that these temporary COs have a six -month life and 6 months from roughly now is putting us into May so if he doesn't have a plan approved and ready to go in order to come close to meeting that May deadline you have the slight risk, or maybe a substantial risk that 3 floor will not long have occupancy certificates. Mr. Wiggins - If I could just understand what it is you're asking of me. If we remove the 20 parking places that are offensive and put the number of spaces that are actually required, which are something less than 20, as I understand it, 17 to 25, 8 additional spaces are required somewhere else. I don't understand what else has to be done that's so complicated. I mean we're taking away the soil that was there so there's nothing to be done in that area except to place 8 parking spaces somewhere else. Ms. Mitrano — That's my question. If we just go back to the original plan what original drainage... Mr. Walker — The original plan had another pond on it and a lot more parking on it. Mr. Wilcox - He has an approved plan which I think has 164 parking spaces. Mr. Smith —Right. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Thayer With a different pond. Mr. Wilcox — Wally, let me get a sense here then I'll explain. Are we sort of in agreement we'd like to see revised drawings before we make an approval? Board agreed that they would. Mr. Wilcox — Wally, what we're asking for before we want to consider this, we appreciate your offer and I'm sure your neighbors do as well, what we would like is a revised set of drawings. Mr. Wiggins — If I could personally do that I'd get them here tomorrow. Mr. Wilcox - And I understand that, but what we want is revised material which reflects where you're going to move the 17 spaces the way I count it and also you're going to have to revise the drainage plan or your engineer will either have to revised the drainage plan or tell us that the drainage plan that you've presented tonight is okay, but I don't want to proceed and I get the sense of the Board that they don't want to proceed without new engineered drawings and a new confirmation or changes to the drainage plan that reflect where you move the parking. We've also said that you can most likely continue to operate the inn with a temporary certificate. It's not a commitment on my part, I can't make that commitment, but you should be able to, I hope, operate the Inn with a temporary certificate of occupancy pending your getting these plans together for the revised site layout where those parking is going to go, what potential changes might need to be made to the drainage plan. And then you know the procedure to the Town staff for review and eventually to the Planning Board for review and possible approval. I think we're in good shape. I think we get what we want which is new drawings to review. The Town .Planning staff, the Town Engineering staff reviews the drawings to make sure they're okay. I think that's the appropriate way to go. Okay? Who should Wally contact about the temporary CO and either its extend or its limitations. Mr. Walker,— Me, it's under my responsibility now with the restructuring. The Code Enforcement Officers work for me. Ms. Mitrano — And you don't know of any reason why he couldn't utilize the second floor as well as the first and third? Mr. Walker I have no idea what state the building is in as far as the building code. The only issue is if the second floor was going generate a need for more parking 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED spaces, but I think based on the fact that the total number of spaces is 125 for the complete facility, if we have 1.18 we should be in pretty good shape. Mr. Wilcox - Are you okay? Mr. Wiggins!'— I think so. Mr. Wilcox - If there's something you don't understand, ask.. Mr. Wiggins — I just want to know that all I have to do is show you parking spaces, additional parking spaces that are appropriate. Take away the soil that has been stored there pending this approval. If those two things are done, have I satisfied the requirements? Mr. Walker `— Basically restoring that area and then we have to make sure that where you're putting the new parking spaces doesn't create storm water problems because we by removing some of the parking spaces from down below you reduced the disturbed area behind the inn `and maybe we have to put a diversion or something in there just to protect thatarea. You can give me a call if you want to. Mr. Wiggins— Okay'. I'll sit down with you and review it. It's Gary Wood that I've got to get involved to get the plans that you need and he doesn't move as fast as we'd like him to. Mr. Wiggins'.— That sound right to you, John. Mr. Barney Yes, at the moment. Mr. Wilcox - John, do we need to take any formal action at this point? Mr. Barney ',- Well I think, Wally, at this juncture it would be probably appropriate for you to indicate that you want to differ action on this until you get the revised plans in if that's acceptable to you. Mr. Wiggins But that means then that I cannot operate with a temporary... Mr. Barney Yes you can. You just defer the review of this particular site plan because I think we are all in agreement this is not the site plan that's going to be the final one. Mr. Walker I don't hear any objections from the Planning Board as to issuing a temporary C.O. for the remainder of the building pending completion of the site plan. Ms. Mitrano You hear support. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Wilcox — Are you comfortable, Wally? Mr. Wiggins — I believe I understand it and I believe I'm comfortable with it. Okay, we need to take no formal action? Mr. Barney No. Mr. Talty — Just a comment. I think this is the way it is supposed to work and in the 5 years that I've been here, I've never seen it work like this and I think it's extremely honorable your actions at this juncture. And I think it also is responsible of the neighbors across the street to get active to come in, have a plan of action and put it forward, and I think that this is how it is supposed to work.. So I think this could be a nice benchmark case if anybody things to the contrary. Mr. Wilcox — Thank you, Wally. Mr. Conneman — Kevin, it has worked before. We did it with Burger King. PUBLIC HEARING For consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regardinga Use Vari i ance or an interpretation for the proposed expansion of the winery building at the Six Mile Creek Vineyard located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 56.- 2 -1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone and Conservation Zone. Mr. Wilcox — The vineyard and winery has previously been granted a variance to allow its use. The current proposal is to modify the existing vineyard / winery with a building expansion on the west side of the building. And interpretation is being requested for consideration as to whether "receptions" are a normal function of vineyards. Alternatively a modification of the previously variance is also being made. The Zoning Board of Appeal has referred this matter to the Planning Board for a recommendation, Nancy Batistel Ia. owner / applicant. If you wish to make a statement the floor is yours. Nancy Batistella Well it's not a huge expansion, it's about a 7 400t reach out beyond the little corner of the back of,our winery. I don't know how many of you have seen it and we wanted to just put a roof over that so that would give us more salesroom space inside and allow for the production area which is directly underneath to be raised. So the expansion is all of about 7 feet 6 inches. So it's not a huge project at all. I don't know if you need more information or if you have questions. That's our real concern at this point in 25 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED terms of time and weather; that's really why we are here. The interpretation of events and things was additionally put on just because that's something that's kind of happened with the business.and I think that people want to know what that's all about and how that's happening. Mr. Wilcox ' You went to the Zoning Board first? Ms. Batistella — Right. They just said that we needed to come to Planning because originally it's a variance on a variance if.that's possible, that's sort of what we are doing. Because it was done through Planning originally that's why it's here: Mr. Wilcox — I'm not sure I've ever been in this position. Maybe I have, but it's unusual when the Zoning Board has referred something back to us. Ms. Batistella — It was in 1985 that we originally came to this Board for the variance and that's why I think it ended up coming back here because it was on that original plan that we are doing this. little expansion. Mr. Wilcox = We would not have given you the variance, it would have been the Zoning Board. Mr. Kanter — I think generally the Zoning Board decided to refer it to the Planning Board because site plan review is not required for this property, however; the Zoning Board felt that there were, some site related aspects that this Board would probably be better able to look at". Mr. Wilcox — And provide a recommendation. Back in 1985 did this Board review a site plan 20 years ago? Ms. Batistella — Yes. Mr. Wilcox— That's an affirmative. Ms. Balestra I found the information today. Mr. Kanter - Tell us what you found. Ms. Balestra — This Board reviewed, I think it was in February of 1985 or around then, the Planning Board looked at a site plan for the vineyard itself and that first parking lot that's directly off of'Slaterville Road, the upper level parking lot. It was site plan for the conversion into the vineyard and winery and then the parking associated with it. Mr. Wilcox — And the Planning Board did approve a site plan. 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Ms. Baiestra — Yes. I'd have to get the minutes. Mr. Wilcox — It's interesting we approved a site plan either before or after the Zoning Board had to have granted a use variance. Ms. Balestra — You did one before, let me grab some information. Ms. Hoffmann — Can I ask a question in the meantime? Mr. Wilcox — Go ahead. Ms. Hoffmann — We got thes( me what they show because plans or what because it says Do these drawings show the the building,as it exists now? three drawings called S1, S2, and S3 and it's not clear to they're not dated so I don't know if they are the original existing vineyard building for informational purposes only. proposed addition that you are building or do they show Ms. Batistella — Yes, these are the drawings just for the addition, but he put in all the previous ones as well so. unless you're an architect or a structural engineer they're really hard to read. Ms. Hoffmann — Could you say that again a little louder, please? Ms. Batistella — They are the drawings for the expansion. Ms. Hoffmann — Okay. So why does it say existing vineyard building? Ms. Batistella — Well, Zoning wanted an existing drawing to be there so that you could see how that would ,compare with the little additional part that we are putting on. Mr. Batistella — It was our understanding that the Town authorities wanted a reference of what the existing building looked like so they could get an idea of what the addition was all about and that's what the drawing proports to show. Mr. Barney °— I still don't get the answer to the question, is this what's there now or is this what you're going to put on? ti Ms. Batistella — It's what we are going to put on, I believe if I understand what you have in front of you. 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Ms. Balestra — If you look on page S3, it took staff a while to find where the actual addition was, but if you look in the little . site plan in the bottom of page S3 you see enclosed portion of existing deck, little, little, little site plan. Mr. Howe It's my- understanding that we don't really have to focus on that too much anyway. Ms. Balestra — No, actually the Planning Board's role is for the.use variance. The actual building addition is for the Zoning Board to consider because it is .within the western property boundary set back. So the Planning Board really, the only thing you really need to look with regards to the building addition is the fact that it is slightly extending the use as well to increase the tasting and the sales which increases the use variance. Mr. Howe -.In speaking to that I'm supportive of allowing for the receptions. I think it is a legitimate addition to a winery business and I like the conditions that have been added here.' I know that there was some suggestion that maybe we consider things like noise and what time variations since it's in a residential area. But I'm supportive of receptions and what not because I think it fits so well with what the business is all about. Mr. Conneman — My interpretation would be sort of value added agriculture. My question to the Batistellas is do you plan any thing else? Is the next thing you are going come in with is a bed and breakfast or a honeymoon cottage or something like that. Mr. Batistella — No. We've got our hand full as it is now. I'm about to retire from my position at Cornell University and I'll.be 71 years of age in a couple weeks and I have no big ambitions. Mr. Conneman — I guess that I agree with Rod. I think that in terms of what has been talked about as value added agriculture, this includes that except that I would be disturbed if you came in and wanted to do something else because it is a residential neighborhood. Ms. Hoffmann — It's not only in a residential neighborhood, but some of the expansions are in the unique natural area and the conservation zone part of your property. So there has to be some consideration as to if there are expansions how it is done so as not to disturb the 6 Mile Creek watershed area and the unique natural area and all.that. Just because it's a farm, which is permitted, doesn't mean that it necessarily can do anything that a farm can do anywhere else when it is in such a special area. Board Member Howe — As I read this condition that is exactly what that one condition addresses. They would have to come back for any additional... PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Thayer — Work. Chairperson Wilcox— I will just point out that I have a copy of the pages of the minutes from February 19, 1985. I am not going to read them, but there were two resolutions done on the fly back then and they are both very short. One, Resolved that the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the site. plan for the farm winery proposed for 1551 Slaterville Road. That is it. Approved unanimously. The second, Resolved that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Mr. Batistella be granted a use variance for a farm winery proposed at 1551 Slaterville Road provided that 1) no increase in the size, scale or magnitude' of the operation, 2) or any change in the types of products and services offered other than those presently permitted by New York State be allowed. Again, that was a recommendation from this Board to the Zoning Board 10 years ago ... 20 years ago. Board Member Mitrano — I'm good. Chairperson Wilcox — I have to give the public a chance to speak because it is a public hearing. The issue with regard to what our ... is everyone comfortable or do we have any objection to...? Board Member Hoffmann — I do have a little bit of a problem with that. I also wanted to know if some of these additions that have happened, the additional parking areas, the additional buildings that have been put up, did they need to be approved by a board before they were put up or were they put up without or could they be put up without such permits or approvals? Ms. Balestra — From our knowledge, the additional parking areas did not get any approvals. It was vague whether they needed to get approvals or not, but they didn't. The one building received a building permit. There is another building on site that has not received a building permit and the building department wasn't aware of it until I made them, aware of it recently. A couple of the other elements, the pavilion and then the pergolas did not meet the criteria to come for site plan review. They were either too small or they were below a certain cost. Mr. Kanter See the problem is that there is nothing that formally triggers site plan review for this particular kind of property. That is why in 1985 the only reason it came to the Planning Board was as a recommendation to the Zoning Board and since then in between the only approval process would have been a building permit process. Parking lots do require building permits, technically, under the zoning. So it is possible that some of those may or may not have received the necessary permits, but they did not require site?' plan approval. That is one of the reasons we are suggesting, if the Board 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED does recommend positively back to the Zoning Board to implement a site plan review process as part of the variance approval. Ms. Balestra — And to also get an existing site plan. with everything on the site as of today because we were unaware of a few of the elements. Board Member Hoffmann - when things happen that proposal and even though it that wasn't as it should he had gotten an approval too. - Because that is the sort.of thing that I find very disturbing shouldn't happen yet. That was true with Mr. Wiggins's you said, Kevin, this is how it should be, but the one part of be was that he had essentially created the parking lot before for it. It seems like this has happened here on this property Mr. Batistella — If I may, I would like to respond to that. I would say that this is a gray area. We are an agriculture district. We are a farm and under the Right to Farm legislation, I thought we did not require approval to put up a farm structure, which. is a pole barn full of farm equipment, which we desperately need. Board Member Hoffmann — You have two such structures. Mr. Batistella — So this is not done with malicious intent. Board Member Hoffmann — But the pergolas and the gazebo or whatever you call it that is on the grounds, are also structures that look like permanent structures. And the parking lots. Mr. Batistella — Well when it comes to a pergolas that never my mind.that that would require a permit. Board Member Mitrano — I'm satisfied. Board Member Talty - It didn't meet the criteria of either dollar or square footage. Board Member Thayer — So we are mainly talking about the parking lot. Chairperson Wilcox — The expansion of the parking lot seems to be the biggest issue. Board Member Hoffmann = And there was one to begin with and now there are three parking lots. Board Member Talty — I think that with moving forward, we have nailed down a lot of things with a lot of these haphazard oversights from whatever end. Right? 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Thayer — Well, the resolution does that. Board Member Talty — So I don't think that there was any intent. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing that bothers me with this application, as well as the other one, is that there was conflicting information. Yeah, the one that we were just talking about before this one ... Wally Wiggins, is that we got in our packet a letter dated October 23 this year from Nancy Batistella about the number of events and the number, of people at the event and so on and then we also got some printouts from the website of the Six Mile Creek Winery and there is conflicting information here. Ms. Batistella - Yeah. I know. There was a correction there. Board Member Hoffmann. — In the letter it says a maximum number of 120 people for events on the farm and on the website it says parties as large as 200 may enjoy a wonderful afternoon or evening beneath a vineyard. tent. It bothers me when I have conflicting information. 1. Ms. Batistella There are a couple of things. The website was just being developed. The numbers are not consistent. It should be 45, not 65. The numbers of 200 versus 120, when I reported that in my note to you all, was that that is what we had done this year. I think approximately the maximum that it might take would be 200 and we have never done that. The question was what are you doing and what would you do and it would never be that many. It never has been, but it probably could take up to 200. So that is the difference there. Board Member Hoffmann — Do you have enough parking spaces for 200 people? Ms. Batistella Well, for 200 people the parking spaces would not be 200. It would be half, but I don't know I would have to ask zoning about that.. Board Member Hoffmann — The Town has requirements for how many parking spaces there could be for certain activities. Mr. Batistella — But the frequencies of these events is such that you don't have a lot use. On the railroad beds, when you do have them, a large attendance, there is more than ample parking because the field adjoining the farm is very flat. People are only parking there if necessary for a matter of hours. How many such events would we have in a year? Possibly four, half a dozen or so. Board Member Conneman — You changed the website; I .assume. Ms. Batistella - Oh, yeah. 31 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I guess .I still have some hesitation about these kinds of activities because of the location of this particular vineyard. Otherwise, I think things have changed as far as looking at vineyards as farms and what one can do on a farm, which is a vineyard. I think receptions and things like that might be very appropriate, at least in certain locations, but because this is so close to Six Mile Creek, which is a very important area for water for our communities and it needs to be protected, I have maybe more hesitation than the rest of you have about allowing this. Board Member Mitrano — What are the particulars there, Eva? Is it runoff if there is more parking? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and if you begin to park on the grass and if it starts to happen more often. If it turns out to become a very popular place for people to have events like this and if the Batistellas then decided that they can do .it more often that could lead to problems. I don't know if we want to set a limit on how often it can happen. Board Member Mitrano — I can imagine an attractive location like theirs, it could be three or four times as many times ... can be accommodated for a season. Where I am more satisfied is for them to build any more than they are already proposing, they. would have . to come back and revisit us. So even . if they did do three or four more times than they do, so maybe 12 times in a season, would that have an adverse affect in terms of parking on the lawn? Board Member Hoffmann — It may. I don't know. I think that is the sort of thing that I would like to know more about. Board Member Mitrano - Does anybody on the staff have an opinion about that? Ms. Balestrai:— About parking? Board Member Mitrano — We're saying that the potential exists that maybe their business will be two, three, four times as much as they are already enjoying right now. Would there be any environmental impact as a result of the parking, not only accommodating the parking that they currently have that is paved, but parking as the gentleman said in the flat area around there, would that have any adverse impact on Six Mile Creek? Ms. Balestra — It is hard to say because it depends on what ... I guess worse case scenario if they choose to put gravel and then pave the area that is now grassy, if there are not proper stormwater controls put in, you increase impervious surfaces so then you increase the runoff and that could potentially have some negative environmental 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED impacts into the Six Mile Creek Watershed. There is a creek that is very large that cuts through the property and there is a parking lot that is adjacent to it now. I don't think that there is any room to expand that even further. Ms. Batistella No and its really, that was an original stormwater runoff from Snyder Hill. It wasn't a stream at all. It was just something that we let the Town put in to do the stormwater runoff from the hill above us. So if there is anything that goes to the watersheds it's more from that than anything else. Everything in our grounds is brought in and taken out. Ms. Balestra — The concern with additional parking in a Conservation Zone, especially, not so much up near the road that presents another issue, which could be overflow of parking and parking onto Slaterville Road, which is an already very busy State highway. That is another issue. There could be potential impacts of that, but the main environme {ntal concern is further impact on the Conservation District and the potential impacts of the Six Mile Creek Watershed. Board Member Mitrano — As I read this, parking lots are included so in terms of putting down gravel and making impervious surface, we would have an opportunity to review it? Ms. Balestra — Correct. That would trigger site plan approval. They would have to come to the board and we could implement proper stormwater management facilities at that time. Board Member Mitrano — My other question is, is the facility such that we would be thinking of the multiplication of. possible events in seasons where there is going to be more of this kind of problem going on with the antifreeze and that kind of thing or are we just . thinking of the summer when it is sort of more easily accommodated? Personally,r I'm not so concerned about the traffic on 79 and I go by there 4 times a day so I am very familiar with it because I assume that those events would be on weekends and it is not when'you are going to behaving traffic _going in and out of Cornell, which can be significant, but I think that there is a complementary nature of the use of that road at that time. Mr. Kanter — I think it is more the question of if there aren't sufficient parking spaces on the site then the flow in and out of the site might impact the State highway. Board Member Mitrano — I see. Mr. Kanter — We certainly do not. want a lot of parking on the .shoulder of the State highway. 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - Neither does the State. Board Member Mitrano — I understand. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just clarify something? Do you have these events inside the winery building as well as outdoors? Ms. Batistella — They are not big events, but we do have dinners and some receptions, small family reunions... Chairperson Wilcox College graduations? Ms. Batistella — Yeah, but usually family parties. Chairperson Wilcox — I went to one. Ms. Batistella — It's been part of the business that has really helped in the sense of survival for-us in terms of more sales and some more business for us. Board Member Hoffmann — But the bigger.events, where you would use all parking lots are held outdoors. Is that what you are saying? Ms. Batistella — Yeah. There were only about four of those where there was that many people this year, over 50 people. Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to find out whether ... if bigger events might happen even in the winter, for instance, because it might have been indoors. Ms. Batistella — We 'don't have the space for it. No. Board Member Mitrano — I share the concerns that Eva raised; but I think so far I am satisfied that this is going deal with the situation. Chairperson Wilcox `opens the public hearing at 8:37 p.m Sarah Larriere, 1570 Slaterville Road My name is Sarah Lamere, 1570 Slaterville Road. I just wanted to say, basically, we feel that the vineyard ..is a positive aspect of the community around there. We have actually really enjoyed having that there. It is beautiful and I think that they have taken great care to make it very aesthetic. I have never noticed with large events there it impacting us at all. I think the traffic is probably quite a bit noisier than anything that could go on in the building. I think that is all I have to say. 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED Brian Lamere, 1570 Slaterville Road My name is' Brian Lamere. I live with this woman, same address of course. So we are almost across the street, kind of three driveways down. Basically, like she said, there is a lot of noise from the highway all the time. So any noise concerns about their place are pretty much null. There is Greyhounds going 90 miles an hour in the front and rigs and all these things. So if they were having a large parry we wouldn't be able to hear it over the road. They also have. so really quite a lovely place. I'm sure most of you have been there, but it is quite a lovely place. I got this little. letter in the mail and it is very interesting and I wonder what the heck they are talking about. So I went over and looked at the place and probably part of the reason why it is hard to tell what exactly they are doing on their plans is because it is such a small change that they are wanting to do. I really didn't know that part of the deck is there because it is sort of lower leveled than the main deck that you go out on. It really didn't seem like that big of a deal tome and! the corner of the building that you can't really see from the road even if that,was a concern at all. We can't see'pretry much any of the parking from the road for the" part except for the very top since it is going down a hill. So I just thought it would be kind of interesting to see what these sorts of meetings are like and also I wanted to make'sure ... it doesn't seem like its that big of a deal to us. The parking is very well kept and as I said, I'm sure most of you have been there. It's a very lovely place. So we just wanted to make sure what was going on wasn't considered too big of an issue I guess. Board Member Mitrano - Thank you for coming. Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. and brings the matter back to the board. Chairperson,, Wilcox - We have a resolution, a proposed resolution in front of us, drafted by staff. Board Member Mitrano moves the resolution and Board Member Thayer seconds the motion. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to make a comment in preparation... we were asked to make a recommendation on whether receptions are a normal function of a winery. I am reading this from one of the papers and what the related site impacts might be. My comment on that is I think these days receptions have become a normal function of a winery, but for this specific site I am worried about what the site impacts might be because of where this winery is located in the UNA and Conservation Zone. So I would just like to have that on the record. The board votes on the motion. 61 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED MOTION by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Thayer. RESOL VED,' that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the use variance granted in 1985 for the Six Mile Creek Vineyard to allow a vineyard, tasting, and sales in a residential zone, located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56- 2 -1.1, be modified to include receptions, and other large ioutdoor and indoor events, subject to. the following conditions; a, the submission of a site plan to the Planning Department, prepared by a licensed architect, surveyor, or engineer indicating the existing site conditions, including all existing structures, natural features, ponds, and parking areas, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck enclosure /addition, and b. the requirement of site plan approval by the Planning Board for any future devlopment of structures on the property (i, e, parking lots, additions to the building, pavilions, etc). The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES • Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano,. Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS None ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried. Approval of Minutes — October 4, 2005 PB RESOLUTION NO, 2005 -105: Approval of Minutes: October 4, 2005 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the October 4, 2005 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as. follows. AYES Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 APPROVED NA YS: None. ABSENT.• Hoffmann The vote on the motion was carried. Other .Business The Board discussed the upcoming agenda for November 15, 2005. The date for the Hanshaw Road fieldtrip was confirmed. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson ,Wilcox adjourns the November 1, 2005 Planning Board meeting at MO p.m. Respectfully submitted, I� ` rrie Coates tNhitmore Deputy Town Clerk 37 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, November 1, 2005 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of designation of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to act as Lead Agency, and the determination of a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance for the proposed Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation. Strategies (TIMS) and the associated transportation focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. The t -LEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to.an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the feedback obtained from the t -GEIS process, and may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: La Tourelle Room Expansion & Spa Addition Modifications, 1150 Danby Road. . 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to the previously approved plan for the spa and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves changes to the proposed''.stormwater facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the, landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant: 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a use . variance or an interpretation for the proposed expansion of the winery building at the Six Mile Creek Vineyard located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56- 2 -1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone and Conservation Zone. The vineyard and winery has previously been granted a variance to allow its use. The current proposal is to modify the existing vineyard /winery with a building expansion on the west side of the building. An interpretation is being requested for consideration as to whether "receptions" are a normal function of vineyards. Alternatively, a modification of the previously approved use variance is also being made. The Zoning Board of Appeals has referred this mater to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Nancy Battistella, Owner /Applicant. 7. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 8. Approval of Minutes: October 4, 2005. 9. Other Business: 10, 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 - 17470 . (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary, to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, November 1, 2005 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on'the following matter: 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to the previously approved plan for the spa and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves changes to the proposed stormwater facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant, 7:20 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board. of Appeals regarding a use variance or an interpretation for the proposed expansion of the winery building at the Six Mile Creek Vineyard located at 1551 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56- 2 -1.1, Medium Density Residential Zone and Conservation Zone: The vineyard and winery 'has previously been granted a variance to allow its use. The current proposal is to modify the existing vineyard /winery with a building expansion on the west side of the building. An interpretation is being requested for consideration as to whether "receptions" are a normal function of vineyards. Alternatively, a modification of the previously approved use variance is also being made: The Zoning Board of Appeals has referred this mater to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Nancy Battistella, Owner /Applicant. 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, October 24, 2005 Publish: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 r TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARb SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION 5c-&A\t- 0 `A, 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. the Town of Ithaca Board in the Toc Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, November 1, 2005 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag_ Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: October 24, 2005 October 26, 2005 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist. Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of October 2005. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 O(O