The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2005-11-15FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 15, 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 Members Tracy Mitrano, Board Member, Kevin Talty, Board Members Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planners Chris Balestra; Planners Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member. OTHERS Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Rd; Brenda Smith, Cornell University; Mira Amundsen, Cornell University; Bill Wendt, Cornell University; Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Rd; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, Bret Leblev, Trowbridge & Wolf; Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Rd; George' Gesslein, 118 Sharpsteen Rd, Locke NY; Joe Bowes, 308 Hook PI; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Designs Denise Scott- Pokorney, 282 Hayts Rd; I Doug Pokorney, 282 Hayts Rd; Amy Dake, SRF Associates; Tom Colbert, 120 White Park Rd; Herman Sieverding, IAD; Tim' Colbert, IAD; Noel Desch, 132 Updike Rd; David Herrick, TG Miller; George Frantz, 604 Cliff St; John Rancich, Ithaca NY; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Ron Knewstub, 180. Hawkins Rd; Pam and Paul Fairbanks, 935 Taughannock Blvd. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:04 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 November 7, 2005 and November 9, 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 November 9, 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 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox `',opens this segment of the meeting at 7 :04 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 7:05 p.m. PRESENTATION Presentation of the draft scoping outline 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 -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will it 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. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7 :05 p.m. Chairperson' Wilcox',`— Kathryn, before you get started, I will just point out that at about five minutes of 7:00, we received copies of the ... two things we received. One is the list of stakeholders and, two is the draft- scoping document. So having said that, the floor is yours. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Thank you. i' Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, 1001 West Seneca Street, and I am here representing Cornell University to speak regarding the Transportation Focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of the presentation this evening is to introduce you to and review the draft- scoping document for the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. I am not going to go through the scoping document line by line, but I have put together a PowerPoint presentation that addresses the overall outline and then focuses in on what I believe are the substantive issues. I will attempt to describe in a summary fashion what it is we are hoping to accomplish 'and is included in the scoping document. We are looking at public scoping on December 6th and then we hope to gather the public comment and have an adopted final scope on January 3rd. I also wanted to remind you', that as we described in some earlier presentations, we have formed the Technical Resource Committee, which has met three times now and we have, I think, been working very productively with them both in person and a lot of email communication. So the presentation that you see tonight and the scoping document in front of you reflects substantial input from the resource committee.. That committee includes representatives from the Town of Ithaca. You have a Town Board Member on that committee as well, Herb Engman is on that committee as well as Jonathan. The 2 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved City of Ithaca is well represented on that committee. The Village of Cayuga Heights, the Town of Dryden, the County, TCAT,.ITCTC, so it is a broad, multi - municipal group of planners and transportation planners and they seem to be very engaged and I think so far it has been a very productive start. I just, finally, before I start the PowerPoint presentation, as of today there is up and running a website for the project, which is linked to the Town site. There is a cover sheet on the scoping document that you have in front of you and the web address is on there. So with that, I think I would like to get into the PowerPoint presentation. I wanted to start by just reminding you what this project is about. Essentially, this project is going to identify and evaluate transportation impacts of hypothetical Cornell population growth over the next decade. That is essentially what we are going to do. Why are we doing? What are we really looking to accomplish here? The fundamental goal of this project is to have a best in class transportation system at Cornell and in the community because the transportation system, of course, does not operate in isolation on the Cornell campus. It is interwoven through the community and so if Cornell is going to have a best in class system it is also. for the community and that is also why we teamed with the Town of Ithaca on this project. We are looking for system -wide solutions. view.. We want to take a progressive view, participation in alternative forms of transportatio transit, pedestrians, bikes, how do we minimize campus? Another desired outcome if we can sustainable system for our community. So that is We want this project to take a broad We really are looking for greater 1. How do we get more people using single occupancy vehicle trips to the accomplish all this, we have a more really what we hope to achieve. I also wanted to remind you that this is a Generic Environmental Impact Statement as opposed to a project specific Environmental: Impact.Statement, which I know that all of you are quite familiar with project specific Environmental Impact Statements'. This being a Generic Environmental Impact Statement we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, conceptual information: So this means that we are really looking for broad trends. We want to understand generally what the impacts for the future are going to be so that they can point towards policies and strategies. We are not looking, at detailed site solutions, although some of.those might also come out of the process, of course, but the overall approach is to look at things more broadly. So what kinds of population trends are. we looking at? This is a graph that illustrates Cornell population over the last 30 years. Across the bottom axis are years, this is 1975 to 2004. The left axis is population at Cornell in thousands. Let me say that when I am talking about population at Cornell, we are talking about the entire population, undergrads, graduate students, faculty and staff. So it is the entire 3 �l Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved populations that in the people who live on campus and that includes people who live in the surrounding community and travel to Cornell to work. For the purposes of this study, that group is probably the more important group. So this graph is representing the Cornell population for that group and the bottom . bars, the sort of lavender bars represent undergraduate students. The middle band represents graduate students and the upper band represents faculty and staff. I think you can see that the undergrad population has remained fairly steady. There is a recommended enrollment cap on the', undergraduate population at approximately 13,000. The graduate students and faculty and staff, the University has continued to see a steady growth in those areas. There have been fluctuations in that growth. You can see that there are dips or peaks up and down and it is anticipated that that will also continue to occur. I think that that is a natural condition of a research institution and tends to be the trend across research institutions that are peers to Cornell. So looking into the future, we know that there will be growth, but we also know that this is going to go up and down. There is going to be some fluctuation. So we looked at historic, actual historic growth trends at Cornell in three different time periods. In the 1990s the population growth was very low and the growth rate for Cornell was like .1% at Cornell for that decade. In contrast, in the 80s, there was relative high growth and the growth rate was approximately 1 %. If we look at the middle here, which is if then average the 30 year time period, it falls somewhere in the middle at .5 %. So each of these scenarios have occurred in the past. Any of these scenarios are possible in the future. So it seems that looking at historical growth trends probably forms as good a basis as any to project hypothetically what could happen in the future. So these are the three growth rates that are going to be applied for three separate scenarios that will be analyzed. So it gives us sort of a low, medium and high growth rate. So if these historic growth rates are projected forward given current population at Cornell, which is roughly, these are rounded numbers of course, the current population is roughly 30,000. That means in the low growth scenario, in a decade there would be the growth of 300. In the medium growth there would be a growth of 1500 and in the higher growth there would be 3,000. So these are the three growth scenarios that will be applied to, superimposed on existing conditions to understand how that might impact existing transportation systems and I will explain that a little more as we go along here. Now when we are talking about population growth, we are talking about population, growth on what we are calling the main campus. The main campus is that area that you see outlined on this diagram, which I think you have all seen before. The eastern boundary is essentially the Town of Ithaca and Town of Dryden townline, Game .Farm Road and essentially is where there is very little development. The campus has really sort of petered out by that time. This is the boundary within which the population growth here is being projected. I think the unique opportunity of this project is that we really have an opportunity to understand the cumulative population In Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved growth impact on transportation and I think that is sort of an usual aspect of this project, compared to a site specific project. We have said this before, but I will just remind you that we are not looking at specific projects within this area. We are looking at the population growth. Any specific projects proposed within that area will continue to come before the board as they always have. This is really a larger scale kind of study. This is an outline of the scoping document that you have in front of you. These are just the major headings. So this outline really. just tells you what the ... is essentially a table of contents` for the GEIS and I'm not going to go through all of these. For the purposes of this presentation, I would like to focus on sections 3, 4 and 5, which is the existing transportation systems, the transportation impacts and mitigations. I think this is the real substance of this project. I think it will be important for this undertaking for us to understand well how the existing transportation system works. So we will evaluate and document holistically how these various elements currently function, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, transportation demand, management programs and vehicular circulation. Then we will overlay these three growth scenarios that I previously described. We will overlay the population growth on these existing conditions.' That tells us then, what are our impacts. What are the impacts to the transportation system? That will hopefully, that will begin to then point to where can we anticipate in the future the transportation system might be stressed. Which elements here might have some weak links? Where might we have problems if we have this level of 'growth a decade out? Where are we going to start to see some overloading of the system? That then leads to our mitigations and begins to allow us to begin to explore... okay, how can we then, do we need more transit or how can we then begin to address in a broad way those impacts. What I would like to do now is just, I'm just going to briefly touch on the five elements here. These five elements will be documented as existing ... I will overlay the growth scenarios to understand what the impacts are and then we will explore what are solutions. I am going to just briefly touch on what we think the primary issues are and in some of this we' won't really know until we get into the study because of course we don't know exactly what we will find. This is our current thinking about what the study really needs to address. Again, in transit, we are really. looking to identify transit improvements and programs that will increase transit use. There is currently a study, a commuter survey being done by the ITCTC. It is a two part commuter, study. The first part has been completed and I am showing you the cover of that first phase study. It was completed in June of 2005. This commuter study focused on Cornell employees and it was really designed to understand where commuters re coming from, why they commute, what incentives might work to get If them to use alternative modes, transit, what are their attitudes towards park and ride and other alternative modes of transportation. So that survey, part I is completed. 5 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Part 2 is currently in progress. Maybe some of you who you ... part 2 focuses on people who are working downtown in the City of Ithaca.. So it is really looking at City of Ithaca downtown employment and that is currently under way. These two surveys, we feel, will give us a lot of good information that we can use to begin to understand user attitudes and help in forming some of the solutions. We already know a lot about the people who work at Cornell and the, students. We know where everyone lives. We have zip codes that we are able to map. We are able to generate a diagram like this. This is preliminary, but a diagram that illustrates how people,. the corridors people use to travel to Cornell. Sothis diagram is generated using the distribution where people actually live and then identifying how they travel to the campus. So a major focus of this study is going to be to understand the major travel corridors. So, for example, we can see over here that 15% are traveling in from this direction. We have got some big user corridors here, 12% from the north. Here's 11% along this corridor. Then we can study these corridors in lots of different ways. For example, here is a map ... this is actually a map that was generated by the Town that shows transit routes. We can begin to lay transit routes over those travel corridors. Are the tra'hsit routes really serving the primary travel corridors? The travel corridors can also begin to suggest where. we might locate park and ride lots. Are there enough bus stops on those major travel corridors? I am just providing these as examples to give you an idea of the kind of analysis that we anticipate undertaking. In the end, we hope to have a whole set of transit strategies and we think that park and ride is a real opportunity and that we will have recommendations for park and ride locations in . capacity, transit service requirements, recommendation for frequency, time of day, should there be an express bus and possible transit route changes and service improvements. We will also be looking at the pedestrian network. The focus here will be looking at are there locations where enhancements could be made to the pedestrian network that would really result in a substantial increase in pedestrians being able to access the campus. We all know that if we want people to get out of their cars, we have to have effective pedestrian networks. So we will be looking at that. We will also be looking at bicycle circulation, similarly. How do we enhance bicycle access to the campus? A lot of work has already been done in this area and of course we will be making sure that we are informed about proposals that are already out there, the City of Ithaca Bicycle Master Plan, Town of Ithaca Bike and Trail Recommendations and how these all link and mesh with the Cornell bike routes. We also need to look at infrastructure. We know that 11 providing things like bike racks on buses, bike racks and bike storage, buildings that are secure and reliable and even changing rooms, these kind of things, really increase use of this mode of transportation. We will also be looking at these types of facilities. r61 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Transportation Demand Management. These are basically incentive programs that encourage use of transit and alternative modes. Some of these are currently offered at Cornell and others are not. We will be sort of looking at a whole. range of options and. see what might be best to improve the options for Cornell. We will also look at vehicular circulation and the focus here is on a corridor analysis again, sort ;of similar to the way that I described the way we would look at the corridors for transit., Again, I think we want to understand trends. So again, if we look, at the travelsheds, this is existing employees coming to Cornell. When we overlay, we will take the growth scenarios and we will distribute that additional population on.these travelsheds in a similar distribution that can be tweaked somewhat if we know that there are certain areas where there might be shifts in population, but the population growth scenarios will be overlaid with the existing. Then we can begin to get a feel for, okay, are there ... the transportation planners can tell us if there are corridors that are beginning to have some stress and some overload. Then that begins to suggest, okay, what kind of mitigation can we do those for roadways. Is it possible to get more transit along that road? What are our alternatives? So that is the kind of corridor analysis that we will be doing. There will also be an intersection analysis, a traditional intersection analysis and we have worked with the transportation planners and the resource committee to develop criteria for ;how the intersections will be identified that will be included in the analysis. So the criteria that has been identified includes, first of all, the intersection has to be on a major approach roadway that provides vehicular access to the campus. The intersection is signalized or has a stop sign control along the major roadway in the direction of approach to campus or from campus. The intersection is generally within one mile of the main campus boundary. That is the red boundary that I had outlined. So generally .one mile beyond that. And Cornell population growth has to increase the future volume of that intersection by 15% or more or in. the case of the intersection that is already operating at a level of service C or D, then at 10% or more. Then if it is operating at E or worse, then it would be 5% or more. Intersections to be analyzed have been identified by Cornell, the transportation planner, the Town,, the City, and the resource committee and the preliminary list is attached to your scoping document. So the intention is ... so that list was compiled by the groups that I just described and the intention is that that list then would be analyzed according to these criteria. Then as they meet the thresholds, would advance to greater levels of analysis. Just a couple of other points, we will also, the intersections and corridor analysis are really for the primary transportation corridors. We understand that there are also concerns of surrounding residential neighborhoods and that we, will also take a look at transportation and how it. impacts, those residential neighborhoods. Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Then finally, parking, of course. We will look at parking both on campus and off campus. Documenting how existing parking, quantity and how it is administered and looking at alternatives to that and how that also impacts the transportation system. And that concludes my overview of the scoping document and I would. be happy to answer any questions. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm impressed. Just for the record, I have looked, there are 59 intersections that have been identified. Board Member Hoffmann — I just have one question. I haven't had a chance to look at the papers that were distributed tonight. I like the presentation that you just gave and I think what you 'are doing is very useful, but as you were just talking about the neighborhoods that you were looking at, the residential neighborhoods,.I found a list of them here and there is one that I don't know where it is, University Hill. Where is that? Ms. Wolf University Hill is the area along University Avenue. I believe it is ... I don't know the exact boundaries. I believe it is between University and Lynn. Board Member Hoffmann — Also .I just looked at the list for the neighborhood where I live, which is just south of what you call main campus, which surprised me because I never thought of it as main campus coming all the way up to Snyder Hill Road and close to Honness Lane. What about.the neighborhoods just south of this boundary that you have showed us? Including areas along Snyder Hill Road, Eastern Heights, the areas along Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane, which are in the Town and adjacent to this main campus. Ms. Wolf - I think that they were just, I'm thinking of Honness Lane for example, I think that that as an example and I guess I would have to go through and look more carefully at everything that you brought up, but Honness Lane, I believe, is on the list of intersections to be analyzed. I think the list of neighborhoods is intended to be more sort of areas that are off ... really nearby, but off kind of the main roads so it is a different kind of street and... Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry. I think you made a mistake there. I think that what I am talking about are. residential neighborhoods that are going to be very much impacted by the traffic that you are studying and the potential problems that come about by growth and you have listed all kinds of other neighborhoods that I recognize fall in a similar category, but you have not listed any neighborhood along the southern boundary. Ms. Wolf — I think we can take a look at that. Planning. Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Conneman — Pine Tree Road, Honness Lane, Snyder Hill. That is a very important neighborhood. Board Member Talty — Given the intersections that are here, George and Eva, I mean they have Pine Tree and Snyder Hill. They have Honness Lane and Pine Tree. I think that they are considering it, maybe you just need to include that in another part of the report. Board Member Conneman — Considering the intersections. is different than neighborhoods. Board Member Talty — True, but I think.... Board Member Hoffmann — I am looking at this in your document that you just handed out tonight. I just happened to lock onto it. It is page 5 of 9 and its point 3, slightly above the middle of. the page. Point 3, point 1, point 4, point 4, description of Cornell commuting ! traffic in surrounding residential neighborhoods and then you had that list that you just showed on the screen in your PowerPoint presentation and. that is where I don't see the neighborhoods that I mentioned, south of this what you call the main campus boundary. Ms. Wolf — I have to go back and compare the list. I think in general the point was that we were trying to capture neighborhoods here that might not be on the major routes because the major routes we thought were captured in that list that is attached. That is how I had thought about it, but maybe we need to..: Board Member Conneman — The Mayor of Forest Home would be upset if you left out ... you just say it, is intersections, it isn't Forest Home. You have the intersections in Forest Home, but you also have Forest Home. Ms. Wolf — Okay. Mr. Kanter - Maybe the point is that what will be considered a neighborhood may have additional things to look at beyond what the corridor and capacity analysis will include so that there. are certain ones that the board is identifying like Pine Tree Road, I agree is one. Whether or not we are looking at volumes and capacities of the roadway, there are issues beyond that because it is a neighborhood that needs to be looked at. Board Member Hoffmann — Again, I haven't read this. It was just handed out tonight, but it just struck. me in the presentation why don't I see my neighborhood when the boundary of this campus is so close. z Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Kanter, — My impression was that these were initial preliminary named neighborhoods as examples and as the study develops others will come to the forefront. Board Member Hoffmann — Good. Board Member Mitrano — In that same vein, Kathy, can I add number 60 to your intersection? Unless I already don't see it here, I'm thinking of Burns and 79 because I am thinking of the two ways that people from South Hill will come down. I do recognize that you have Route 96B.and King, which is one way people will come down, but going down the other way and then Burns down and up. Thank you. Board Member Talty — Not to be out done, is the whole Triphammer corridor coming through th&Northeast all the way into... Board Member Mitrano — It's there. Chairperson Wilcox - Kathy, what are the next steps? Ms. Wolf - The next step will be contacting the stakeholders and Eva, we made a point of getting the list to you tonight, you should also have that distributed to you. Board Member Hoffmann — You mean you have ways of contacting individual citizens through these? Ms. Wolf These' stakeholder groups will be added to ... there have been some discussions about this and the Town maintains a list of interested involved agencies that will receive a mailing as routine. For.the public meetings, they will simply become part of that public mailing, everyone on that list to inform "them of the meetings. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, I haven't had a chance to look at the list either. There is no point in 'me discussing that. Board Member Conneman — Well, certainly Pine Tree Road ought to be on that list and Eastern Heights ought to be on that list. Certainly Honness Lane should be on the list. I don't know who you contact. Ms. Wolf — They have an association or something? Board Member Conneman — I don't know if they have an association. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that is for you to find out. 10 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Kanter - Any of those that do have neighborhood associations will be contacted, we have the lists, and not all of them do actually. Board Member Hoffmann — That is one of my problems. Mr. Kanter — We can certainly not notify every resident in those areas. What we will also try to do is through websites, through the media, all the things that we.normally do, this is not going to be any different from what we have done before with major projects, we will notify people in the broadest sense possible. Not to mention the legal requirement for notices in the Journal and other media sources. So we will be doing all of that as we do all the time. Ms. Wolf — We are preparing a press release. So we are hoping that we get some general coverage about the project to increase awareness and there will be other efforts made beyond the normal sort of meeting notification. So we will be doing that in preparation for the public scoping on December 6th and that really is the major next step to obtain public input on this. Mr. Kanter The only thing that we are asking the board to do tonight is to formally set the public scoping session for December 6th if you would be willing to. Chairperson,Wilcox — Would that be legally advertised as a public hearing? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — The public would be invited to speak to propose topics to be added to the scoping document. We should also point out the importance of that scoping document. Its purpose is to set upfront those areas to be investigated by in this case the applicant. It sort of prevents scope ... for these sorts of environmental impact statements so that people can't add and add and add to them and try to use that as a weapon to prevent them from being completed. Board Member Mitrano — I think that is a good idea. I will move it. Board Member Hoffmann like it would be three we( would be enough time to can come in and make should be included in this — That is a good idea, but on the other hand, it looks to me Mks between now and December 6 and I am wondering if that get information about this project out to people so that they intelligent comments about it and to actually suggest what scoping document. Board Member Mitrano — How long would they need? Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Think of yourself as a public person and something comes . up and you want to be informed to be able to comment on it and try to fit that into your daily life, which is full for all of us, is three weeks enough? 1. Board Member Mitrano I would say yes, but maybe I am not appreciating all the considerations you are thinking about. Board Member Talty I would say traditionally three weeks is enough, but maybe not, this time of;year because you are heading into the whole holiday season, which throws a whole multitude of different items into everybody's schedule. Board Member Mitrano — But on the other hand if you wait until after the full holiday season, how long are you going to be postponing the work that they want to do? Mr. Kanter The idea of having it December 6th, which again is the first step because we plan to have a second public scoping meeting in early January once this initial draft has been distributed and the public has had a chance to comment and comments have been submitted, a revised draft scoping outline would be submitted to the board and the idea is to have a second public scoping session, which is very unusual that has almost never has happened in my experience in planning and the idea of that would be to give the public a final chance for additional comments. So at that point the board on that January date, if that is when we schedule it, could either based on the number of additional comments received at that date could defer accepting it until they following meeting or 'if people seem to be quite happy with the way that the revised scope has gone, could ladopt it that night. It would be up to the board's discretion. I think December 6th is after Thanksgiving. It is well enough before Christmas so it is a good, window there for people to be available. I'm afraid if you get later than that that you will be deferring it much later, well into January. Chairperson Wilcox - Two public scoping sessions? Mr. Kanter - I'm not saying that we are going to be starting from scratch... Chairperson' Wilcox The fact that two public hearings would be scheduled is quite innovative: How's that? Ms. Balestra — Very diplomatic. Mr. Kanter - Unusual. Chairperson 'Wilcox.— I have a motion to schedule the public scoping session on the 6th of December. 12 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Talty — Second. Chairperson Wilcox - You have said that there is going to be a second scoping session. Kathryn, you representing Cornell, do you also say that there will be a second scoping session? Ms. Wolf - Yes and we would like to maintain the option that if everything is in order, that you do have the option of adopting it. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Good to know. Board votes on the motion. PS RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -106: Setting .Date for Public Scoging Session, Cornell University transportation- focused, Generic Environmental Impact Statement`(t- GEIS), And Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy. TIMS MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty BE IT RESOL VED: That the Planning Board hereby determines that the Public Scoping Session for the Cornell University Transportation- Focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategy be held on Tuesday, December 6, 2005. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Connemara, Mitrano, Talty. NAYS: None. The Motion. was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR DETERMINATION For the proposed Bowes dock and boat lift located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard. Mr. Wilcox — For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the process the first thing we will deal with is the environmental impact and if this Board should make a negative determination of significant environmental impact then we'll proceed to actually 13 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved reviewing the proposal and at that point we will open the public hearing and give those members of the audience a chance to speak who wish to.. So don't be concerned if you don't get your chance to speak as early as you think you might be entitled to. . If you would give us a name and professional address and provide a brief overview of what' being proposed this evening. Ron Knewstub, 180 Hawkins Road, Ithaca Well, we've already begun the project. I'm a dock builder; I build docks in Cayuga Lake. We generally, I meet with the property owner and we decide what his boating requirements are. We decide on a dock and then we . make application to the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Conservation and from now on we'll be making application to the Town of Ithaca. So we have received those permits from the United States Army Corp of Engineers. The Department of Environmental Conservation has written a letter of non - jurisdiction basically stating that there was no significant environmental impact and set up guidelines for the work. Generally the way the Army Corp looks at a dock is what are the boating requirements, what are the water dependent uses, how much water do you need for boat? Cayuga Lake, the bottom of the lake, a lot of it, has slope about 1 in 10. So for every 10 feet you drop one foot. So if you needed 8 feet for example you'd have to go 80 feet. In this case, I think this dock is 70 feet long with an I to the north and a boatlift with a roof over it to the south. It's a pile driven open pile dock, which is the preferred style of dock in Cayuga Lake, I believe, by the biologists that work for the Army Corp and for the DEC. It allows water flow and air passage and sunlight. Mr. Wilcox - Questions? Mr. Talty — Are they in receipt of this letter? Mr. Wilcox - Have you seen the letter from John and Joyce Stanton? Mr. Knewstub — Yes I just received a copy today. Chris faxed me a copy and I read it. Luke Bowes and I met with Mr. Stanton, actually we talked to both John and Joy before we began the project, and they're already encroaching upon the Bowes property. Some of the structures on their land, for example, their stairs and their deck. So if you project the line of the property out into the lake their dock is passed, it also encroaches. So the Stantons leave no setbacks so if you take their setback plus what they're encroaching you're talking about taking basically their deck off their dock. Right now that pole, I `don't know if you have the photographs. Mr. Wilcox - I have some photographs, which were provided by Christine. 14 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Ms. Balestra — The photographs you have in your hand though were provided by the writers of the letter. Mr. Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Knewstub — This photograph here? Ms. Balestra I — No, those were staff photographs. The additional photographs were to be passed around at the Board. Mr. Knewstub — In any case, does this photograph have a number? Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Knewstub — Well this one pretty much looks down, I guess, from the top of their stair pretty much center line with the house, straight across the lake looking east and has a pretty good line on the line of pilings for the dock. And there's a southwest . piling, that's the one that's furthest south and closest to shore and that's the one that's nearest the Stanton's dock. That I went down there today just to see where it was in relation to their dock. There's 16 feet between that piling and their dock and that is the extent of the boatlift. There's nothing else going south of that. You could bring in the MV Manhattan in there if you wanted to.. It doesn't limit their boating activity at all and they also said that they do not use that part of their dock for boating. That was part of our discussion with them prior to starting this project. There's too much, there's a creek to the north side of this property. between the neighbor to the north and the Bowes property that washes out a lot of shale and the existing dock that you see on the north end is' very shallow. I think that's approximately, yes it says here, 50 feet long. And if you look all around there there's not really any room. It's very hazardous to take a boat in there. You would damage your propeller. So that's why they've moved down to this, further down their property, to get deeper water. But that shale washes around and where the Stantons, I don't know whether the Stantons built that dock or somebody else did, pretty much where their dock is there's a lot of gravel washed out or shale pretty much out to their deck so the normal slope isn't there. It stays shallow for a good 20 feet. So they can't use it and they said so. Ms. Mitrano — They said so to you? Mr. Knewstub — Yes they did. Ms. Mitrano - Then why have they written us a letter suggesting... Mr. Knewstub — I don't know. They came out, in fact they seemed a little, I mean basically their attitude seemed to be no concern at all. That they were somewhat 15 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved apologetic for encroaching in the first place and there's really no problem we don't use this part of the dock. It was never an issue. And that's why I was a little surprised to see this letter today. Ms. Mitrano — Is this something that you could wait until they return and we can hear their side of it from their own perspective. Mr. Knewstub — Well as it is we have to go to the appeals board anyway, right? So it's not like anything's going to happen until we go through that process which is the 21st. Mr. Wilcox - That would likely be postponed if this Board should postpone action. Mr. Knewstub — It would be? Mr. Wilcox Not necessarily. Mr. Barney In fact there is some reason to suggest in this instance it might not be a bad idea to go the other way. Mr. Wilcox — It would seem inappropriate to potentially grant a variance on a plan that hasn't been approved and could be changed. That's what I'm thinking. Mr. Barney `— The other side of the coin, is thought that it's not clear that under the law that there's clear authority for you to even act in the absence of a change, a variance, of one of the conditions that relate to the granting of the site plan. It's. a kind of a chicken and egg situation we have here. Mr. Wilcox — I would hate for them to consider granting variances and should they grant one or more then have it come back to this Board and then we change the plan. Ms. Mitrano — I appreciate the issue. Mr. Kanter — I think part of the problem is, if I understood Chris correctly, the Stantons will not even be back in time for the Zoning Board Meeting. Ms. Balestra — Right. That's what the letter indicates that they will be back November. 23rd, Ms. Mitrano — They might be advised to get someone to start to speak for them if they feel strongly about these issues. But my concern is not really just to represent their position, because I don't represent them, but to try to get a sense as to what the reasons are for your having failed to come to us in the first place as a procedural 16 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved matter and then substantively what all of this extra territory is all about for which you are going to need a variance and a whole lot of our consideration for approval. Mr. Knewstub - What is this whole lot of territory about? I'm sorry I didn't understand your question. Ms. Mitrano — Your dock is very large and it exceeds the... Mr. Knewstub — This is a pretty normal sized dock for Cayuga Lake. Ms. Mitrano — Oh, then I guess we've got a lot of enforcement to be doing. Mr. Kanter — Or we; may, well this a later discussion, we may want to re -look our new zoning, this was the' brand new lakefront zoning that the Town came up with. . Mr. Conneman — Well, this will not effect him, but I think we have to send this back to Codes and Ordinances to decide what they would like to do otherwise we'll be looking at every dock that comes along the way and it's going to vary by... Mr. Kanter We may want to, but I think . we aren't there yet. We want to first work through this particular specific case and then see if there are problems with the ordinance we can go back and revisit it. But we don't go back and revise the ordinance and keep this project pending while that's happening, I don't think. Mr. Conneman — But if we grant them an exception that sets a precedent? Mr. Kanter — Not necessarily. John can answer that better than I can. Mr. Barney — Every time you grant a variance it's potentially precedence, that's the nature of the game. Quite frankly when Codes and Ordinances did the lakefront I don't know that we had in front of us a comprehensive study of the size of docks along both shores of Cayuga Lake in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Kanter — We did not. Mr. Barney — I think now with the information we've gotten, probably the size of the docks that may have been put on the ordinance may have been a little bit on the small size for the sizes necessary to get to a depth that accommodates the typical boats that are on Cayuga Lake. So, I don't know that I'd let the size worry you too much. I think I'd look at it from a site plan standpoint and let the Board of Zoning Appeals deal with the issue of whether the size is too big as long as you're reasonably comfortably from an aesthetic standpoint. 17 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Ms. Hoffmann — I happen .to have very strong feelings about this that I've had ever since I was on the Zoning Board of Appeals way back and we were looking at docks that people living in the former boat houses on the east side of the lake wanted to build in front of their very narrow little houses. I feel that the lake, which. is owned by the State of New York, which means it is owned by all of us, is public property. We do not allow people to encroach on public property on the other side of their lot that is on the roadside. We don't even allow them to do much in the right -of -way, which is usually about 25 feet in, in our yard from the edge of the road. We certainly don't allow people to encroach'' on their neighbors across the side yard boundaries and we have rules that say how far back from the side yard you have to be. So why do we want to keep allowing people to build longer and longer dock encroaching more and more into the lake? Where do we stop? When the two docks from the east side and the west side meet and nobody can get through? The point is silting in happens along the lake. Cayuga Lake happens to be the. lake, which is lowest in the chain of lakes, and it's much harder to control the water level in Cayuga Lake because of that. I heard that there was a study done on how deep the lake was in the southern end in the early 1900s by a group of Cornell people and by the time the sewerage plant was built which was in the late 70s or early 80s there had been 12 feet of silt that had been added in the lake from the early 1900s study and this next. study. And that's going to happen all the time. So of course the water level close to the shore is going to be lower and lower all the time ,and if the only answer is going to be to extend the docks further out I don't think that's what we want. I think that when we sat down and came up with the size of docks .and the extent that they could extend into the water and so on, we came up with some very good reasons for that and you read that in the papers. I don't think that we can keep on allowing people who happen to live on the lake to extend it further out. If they have boats that need deeper water they have to do what everybody else does and find a place to keep that boat, it doesn't have to be necessarily right next to their land even if they are lucky enough to live on the lake. And so I really think that I don't want to see us changing the regulations we put into our Zoning Ordinance quite recently, at least not without giving this considerable thought about why we are doing it, for whom, and for the !benefit of whom. Mr. Knewstub — The lake is pretty wide. So when you're talking, let's say if you built the maximum allowed by the Army Corp which is 100 feet and you built one on the east shore 100 feet, I don't think. they'd come very near each other. There's quite a span between them. Boating wise, you're not allow to come within 500 feet of shore unless you're at wake speed. I mean the distances, I think it sounds like we're cluttering up the lake, but in fact there's a very minimal impact in my opinion. There's very little shoreline, I've heard that often said by biologists and they'd like to limit seawalls and that sore of thing. It's not so clear that open pile docks are an environmental problem. I know that, and this is probably a totally separate issue, but people pay a premium to live on the 'lake I'm not sure it's fair to limit their boating activity. You know, they pay higher taxes, I think, than most people. And the filling in of the lake it varies, it's not Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved consistent at all. The south end is, but that's because it was never .dredged in the first place when it began a long time ago. It is an inland water of the United States also so it also belongs to the rest of the County so, I mean, we do have access to the rest of the world from here. It's a fascinating lake and I don't see any reason to build any more than you need to for your water dependent use, but everybody's idea of that is quite different: And by building it, this is not going to in any way limit your access to the lake, building a dock there. You can still appreciate it from the limited Town parks that we have. If the Town wants people to have access to the lake they should extend their waterfront. Ms. Hoffmann — I was obviously exaggerating when I said docks meeting each other, I hope you realize that. Mr. Knewstub — I sort of took you literally, I'm sorry. Ms. Hoffmann — But it's not just access to the lake, but it's also enjoyment of the lake in various ways and I stick with what I said. I'm not going to repeat it. Mr. Talty — I'd like to know why the pilings are already there? You mentioned when you first came up to the table that you've already started the process and I don't quite understand how that could be. Maybe somebody could clarify that. Mr. Knewstub — Ignorance of the law, it's pretty simple. And I know ignorance is now excuse, but we had our permits in place from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and Department of. Environmental Conservation which have always pretty much been all that was ever required. And then Steve Williams came by to inspect the new house to do the certificate of occupancy and called down to us and asked us if we had a permit from the Town of Ithaca and we said, no. They asked us to come in and fill out an application. Mr. Kanter I think Chris might have something to add to that. Ms. Balestra The Town has never issued permits for docks previously. Not even building permits. They've always gone through the Army Corp of Engineers. So most of the applicants that you are going to be seeing are not aware or have not been aware that when we updated our Zoning Ordinance we created a lakefront residential zone which now requires site plan review, special permit, and potential variances. Mr. Wilcox — And that revised Zoning Ordinance took effect April 1 of 2004. Mr. Kanter — And now probably more people will be aware of it. Mr. Wilcox - Somebody had to be. first. 19 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Ms. Balestra — It may be a matter of someone from staff notifying lakefront property owners that the law is in effect and that they need to get approvals. Ms. Hoffmann That might not be a bad idea, sending a letter out to all lakefront property owners. Mr. Conneman — My concern is I don't see how can act when we have a letter dated November 14th and it says something that I think is important. Mr. Knewstub — Well why did it take so long to get here? Ms. Balestra — We received it today. Mr. Connem "an — We get other materials from other people at the last minute too, but 11 this is dated! November 14tH Mr. Wilcox - Hold on ladies and gentlemen. Questions with regard to the environmental review of the project. I just want. to make sure we get those all out of the way. Ms. Mitrano — Well,' I guess I'm, still trying to understand the changes with respect to the length of the dock. So walk me through it because I'm a little bit tired. Chris, the length that we have in our ordinance is 30 feet? Ms. Balestra — That's the limit, right. Ms. Mitrano — Most docks go out to 50 feet and that appears reasonable to do the docking necessary given the silting. Ms. Balestra — It does appear -to be reasonable though the lengths that I noted in the documents are approximate. I was not able to actually measure everyone's dock. Ms. Mitrano— And then this one is going out 70 feet? Ms. Balestra — Correct. Ms. Mitrano — Is it you opinion that that one is relatively unique in going out that extra 20 or so feet? Ms. Balestra — Again, it's hard to say because the shoreline changes considerably as well. So some of the docks appear to be 50 to 55 feet long looking north and looking south, but then if the shore is that much farther in they could actually be 70 feet long. 010 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved It was hard to measure. I can't say. I am passing around an aerial photo of some of the docks along the lake so you can get an idea of the variety and the lengths. Ms. Mitrano — How would you answer that questions? Mr. Knewstub — What is the average size of a dock on Cayuga Lake? They vary some. Actually the shortest docks we do are 55 feet or 60 realistically because of the slope of the bottom. Unless people don't have a boat, and if they don't have a boat they just want a dock to fish off of or swim off of. But generally, actually close to Ithaca because of the shallow end you're going to have people needing to go out quite far. If you had the very first property on either side, you know, you have to go out quite far just to pull a boat up cause the depth doesn't change very much. You could be out 100 feet and it would still be 4 feet. Ms. Mitrano — How many docks have you worked. on in say the last few years? Mr. Knewstub — Several hundred. Ms. Mitrano — Several hundred? Mr. Knewstub — Yes, many dock. Ms. Mitrano — Could just estimate as to an average as to about how many feet long they are? Mr. Knewstub — This is pretty average average 60 to 80. Mr. Conneman — Along this side of the lake? Mr. Knewstub — the width of the very far into the several hundred in a boat and y docks. Cayuga Lake. lake and the lake in terms feet out so it IOU 're running I mean it Depth. You of boats gi sounds far along the I've done 150 -foot docks. This is pretty sounds big but you have to think in terms of walk out 100 feet in the water and you're not )ing by and that sort of think. The boy line is but it's a perspective thing. When you're out outside you look in you don't even see the Ms. Mitrano — Are these the reasons, John, why you advise us to try to take a look at this not from a black letter perspective but from a site plan perspective? I was intrigued by your observation? 21 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Barney — The 30 foot limit that was put in here I think was done, I won't say it was throw a dart against a board to get it, but it was not done I don't believe with any real scientific or study precision. So I don't think there's any magic about it. Mr. Kanter — Well, I'd go farther. Not only wasn't there a scientific study there was no inventory of existing docks on the lake when we did it. None whatsoever. Mr. Barney - It's kind like if we said we'd make it a 10 -foot dock and now we realize that every dock out there is at least 50 feet long. I'm not sure I'd be overly concerned with the 30 feet given the history, the legislatively that went into this particular provision. Mr. Kanter — Also, that particular provision specifically gives the Planning Board the authority to extend docks longer than 30 feet if there is a finding that that length is necessary for the... Mr. Barney— To reach adequate water depths for proposed boat docking. Ms. Mitrano — Because my instincts are with Eva, but I certainly am listening carefully to what is being said. Mr. Barney — I'm not trying to convince you to go one -way or the other. That's your call. Ms. Mitrano = I'm trying to understand what the real needs are here and perspective. Mr. Barney — Do any other municipalities regulate docks on the lake? Mr. Knewstub — The office of general services, I believe. Mr. Wilcox — Do any of the towns? Mr. Knewstub — Aurora has zoning in place now. I did a job there several years ago and since it's a historic place you have to go through the State Historic Preservation Office or the SHPO and he, Rick Lourde, asked me to go down the entire village of Aurora and take pictures of all the existing structures because it was a proposed boat house and a fairly long dock. They wanted it to fit the environment sort of aesthetic concerns too. So actually a lot of the existing ones are pretty ugly so this one was fairly attractive. I don't know if they have zoning limit son it. I mean I just had a permit for 100 -foot dock there. We did the Aurora Inn dock and that's 100 feet. We try to fit the, that's another shallow area. So the Town they talked about it and they allowed it. Mr. Barney - I'm not aware of any other towns in Tompkins County. 22 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Knewstub — Ulysses does if you do a boathouse. The inspector has come, stood on the bank and looked down, and that's as close as he wanted to get to it. Lansing does now. Mr. Barney — That regulates the length of docks? Mr. Knewstub — I don't know about the length. I have to look at their zoning. I've heard that they do.: I should look into that. Ms. Hoffmann — I have a couple of questions. The photos indicate these poles that are already put into the water. Are these all the ones that would be needed for the dock or would there be additional ones added? Mr. Knewstub — There are additional poles that go further out into the lake. Ms. Hoffmann — That go further out into the lake? Mr. Knewstub — A little farther. There's an L to the north. Ms.. Hoffmann — I thought so from looking at some of the photos. Now the photos, just for the other Board members, the photos on the second page we got that show the view of the poles from the south and the north, you can see that they stick out quite far with respect to the view of the rest of the lake and that's not all then if there are more to be added. And from the aerial view it appears that this particular site is also where the coast comes out a little bit more into the lake with respect to the rest. It's not straight there. So'that makes it jut out even more and be even more objectionable from my point of view from the neighboring properties whose view of the rest of the lake will be interfered with. The question I had for you in addition is you mentioned that you have built recently in this area docks that are 100 or 150 feet long. Why would one need to have a dock that's that long? Mr. Knewstub — Well you would if you, you know, some people have sailboats that draw 7 feet and they want to pull up to the end of their dock so they need that water. Ms. Hoffman — But I would not expect people with sailboats to expect to have docks to get to their boat. They would have a .small dock and they would take a little boat and go out to the sailboat. Mr. Knewstub — That's pretty traditional, but they'll stay awake at night worrying about their boat bobbing around on the mooring. Ms. Hoffmann - That's a separate problem isn't it. 23 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Knewstub — I suppose, but people all have their different needs for their land and I agree that neighbors have to learn, I mean not learn,. I mean it's the neighbors who decide, I think, what should be allowed and that's why we did talk to the Stantons. And generally when I meet a client and we talk about the dock, I would say to them what do your neighbors think. We always talk about how is this going to affect the neighbors, what do they think about this? Especially if there is going to be a roof or that sort of thing because it is going to effect the visual field there. Ms. Hoffmann — I agree with you that's a good idea. Mr. Knewstub = So we always do try and talk about it. See where the neighbors are on it. Especially if there isn't any dock then you're going to know what the thinking is. Generally we felt in this case that everybody was pretty okay with it so that's why I was surprised again to see this letter from the Stanton. Ms. Hoffmann — That's a separate problem. It's nice to get along with the neighbors but the regulations of the Town also have to be complied with. As I said I think there are good reasons for why the regulations are the way they are. I happen to own lake property myself and' I know it's expensive, but there are other pleasures about having lake property other than being able to dock a boat there. So that's worth paying for. Mr. Talty — I do believe that docks have come a long way. Because it seems to me that, and I enjoy the lake and I get out there often., but docks are not just docks any more, docks °are now boathouses, apartments, extended porches. Mr. Knewstub — Well they're not supposed to be. Ir Mr. Talty — They .are not supposed to be, but they are. You and I both know it. So there's people, I'm not saying they're living up there 24 — 7 365, but there are certainly... Mr. Knewstub — If I may say so in my experience there are very few people doing what you just said. I Mr. Talty — But there are a few. Mr. Knewstub — There are a few, sure. Mr. Talty — No question about it. I think the point that Eva is making is that, and I understand what you said about. X amount of feet going out and down, and I particularly like these structures, but I think that a lot of thought has to be taken by this Board about what we want to do in the future because I think that's what we did in 24 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved 2004 as that was passed. To come and get building permits and things of that sort, because where does it stop? I'm not saying that We're. going to bump into the west side and the east side, but at the same time... Mr. Knewstub — It stops at where, the Army Corp used to be 150 feet, they reduced it to... Mr. Talty — I'm talking about the elaborateness of the docks in general. Mr. Knewstub — Well the square foot area. You come up with a square. foot configuration of the need for that boat. You're going to need to house the boat and boat lift, you're going to need the accessory structure to access the boat and you may or may not need that deck on the end. So that's something that's debatable I suppose. Like you said, people do want to go out and extend their day, if they're on the west side. I'm going to be here again for a person that just bought a huge place down here on the east shore in Town.. Paid in the millions for the property. Felt it fairly shallow, he has to go far out into the lake. He wants a 75 -foot dock and he wants the L on the end because that's what he's told he was allowed. I know that some of them are pretty extravagant and far more elaborate than they should be. I personally don't think it's necessary to have an enclosure, you know to have siding and all that, because that's, I just don't think you need it. And it does start to limit the visual thing and that's not a good thing. Mr. Talty — I had a follow up question that's a little .different. Do you install a different type of dock for the east side of the lake versus the west side of the lake because of the winds that go from the west to the east? Nr. Knewstub — No. Mr. Talty — So, they're all standardized? Mr. Knewstub — Yes, they are all pretty much. Ms. Mitrano I'd like to just through out a suggestion given the variety of issues and concerns that have emerged about this application. Mr. Wilcox And it's the first one we've every dealt with. Ms. Mitrano And it sounds like there really wasn't as thoughtful a consideration about the geography of the lake when the codes was established so that sounds like that needs rethinking as well, which is that the applicant consider the option of withdrawing the application for tonight, going through the Zoning Board, giving the Zoning Board and opportunity to consider this matter. It will give us an opportunity to think about it 25 Planning. Board. Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved more. It will give the Stantons the opportunity to represent themselves more 41 thoroughly. Whether they are here or not they can always an attorney or someone to come here and I certainly would be very thoughtful. If you did do that and the second time comes up and they still haven't brought anyone here to really talk about it then I'm going to say, Okay it's easy to write a letter but they really don't care that much. Mr. Knewstub — I'm not sure I understand the order of business. How does it go, the timing? The Zoning Board is the appeals board? Mr. Barney — The Planning Board deals with site plan and with the issuance of the special permit. If certain criteria are met, you are entitled to a special permit. However, when you have a situation that is not within the law as written as for in this instance you want a dock that is longer than the law in this case the Planning Board has authority to grant that deviation, but you also want one that I think is larger in size than is permitted and... Mr. Wilcox - Area and width. Mr. Barney the width of it is greater. be waived by this Board they have to Different function. So you have to go Board approves it or does not approve it whether you go to this Board first or go dozen of the other particularly in this king Those dimensional requirements cannot really be modified by the Board of Zoning Appeals. to them to get the modifications. Then this under the criteria that governs (inaudible).. So to that Board first is kind of a six of one half a J of situation. Mr. Knewstub When does the Zoning Board meet? Ms. Mitrano — Rather than our rejecting your proposal tonight and then it's more of a hurdle for you to come back. Mr. Knewstub — Okay so when is the Zoning... Mr. Wilcox — You have that sense of the Board? Ms. Mitrano. Do you. Mr. Wilcox I haven't thought about it yet whether that's the sense of the Board. Ms. Mitrano I don't know, that's why I'm saying it's just something to consider. . . Mr. Conneman - If he goes to the Zoning Board and they say okay and comes back to us, we could say no. Is that right? 26 Planning. Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Barney — Not necessarily. Yes, I mean it depends on which criteria you're (inaudible); but you would not be really able to say no then based on the dimensional deviations because, at that point he would have had a variance which says basically it's the same as if it was full compliance with the law. Now that's not to say there aren't other criteria that 'you may choose to rest a decision on, but the dimensional ones would not longer be... Mr. Wilcox';— If they grant a variance, which says the area, can be 1,056 feet then we have to accept that. Ms. Mitrano — In terms of the feet, we don't have to accept it in terms of the site plan because we're still even on environmental review right now as, I recall. Mr. Wilcox But if they grant that variance, correct me if I'm wrong, but if the grant that variance what 'position does that put us in if we don't like a 70 -foot dock. Ms. Mitrano — Well we better not like the look of it, based on the criteria we have to evaluate every other site plan. Mr. Conneman — That's giving up the option of this Board to make a decision. Mr. Taity — In one area. Mr. Wilcox - Width of the dock and total area. Mr. Kanter And I'll just mention the Zoning Board hearing notification did not include variance for length' because we assumed that would be, at least initially, under this Board's jurisdiction. Mr. Wilcox "This Board has the jurisdiction for length, yes. Mr. Kanter - However, if this Board didn't approve the length, the applicant presumably could at some other point go to the Zoning Board for a length variance as well. Mr. Conneman — I still would argue you've got a letter here before you that you have to respond to..' You can't ignore it. Mr. Wilcox I've been pretty quiet so far and I want to get this Board to take some action one way or another. I've been looking at the survey map produced by TG Miller. I've also been looking at the aerial photograph that was provided during the meeting, which shows the docks along the lake. The Stanton's property, well let me just start this way; the property in question is roughly 115 to 117 feet wide. The Stanton's property looks about 60 feet wide. It is a narrow, narrow piece of land and is about the 27 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved width of their house, roughly. Therefore, it makes it somewhat difficult to put their sized dock and their 60 feet of frontage or 55 feet of frontage in such a position that the neighbor, the applicant here, could put their dock in the middle of their 117 feet of frontage and still 'potentially block access to the. Stanton's dock. Not because the applicant has done anything wrong. It would appear from the drawing we provided that the dock is totally, I hate to say without on their property, but certainly within their property lines extended out into the lake. Board Member Mitrano — May I have a point of question? Do property lines extend out into the lake? That's news to me. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not saying that they do. I'm saying that it seems to be... Attorney Barney In 20 words or less, sort of. The lines and there is a variety of methodology for determining who has the rights off the property. If you are in a cove, there is one way of doing it. If it's a straight shore line ... (not audible) ... but generally speaking the lines come to the shoreline and then bend and go perpendicular off the shore to the lake for purposes of determining, for example if you want to buoy out there whether you, are doing it within the area that you. have the right to do it as opposed to the area where you may... Board Member Mitrano — And how far does that go? Attorney Barney — Technically you don't own any of it. It is all-owned by the State of New York, but in terms of where you can place things, where your literal rights go, it is how you bend lines, at that point. There is a lot of litigation of how it actually bends or how far it bends. Mr. Barney — ,Ultimately, a court could apply 15 different rules and pick the rule that they think is most applicable to this situation. Board Member Talty - I have another question on dock — is it feet out into the lake for a dock that.we measure, or if you bend it, is it from beginning to the end? So if it's an L Shape Mr. Knewstub — Well, the department of environmental conservation has a threshold of 4,000 square feet, ,and what they do is they draw a perimeter line around the entire project back to shore, so even the empty area is part of the project. So, you start on the south side, go out, turn and go back to shore. You know, you go out to the end, to the north -south line of it, and then return to shore and that's the square footage, the perimeter line, for the threshold. Board Member Talty - I see. Planning. Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Knewstub - So ,I never computer this, but this is well below the 41000 threshold. Legally, I'm not sure I understand how any of this works. They're always interpreting the regulations, it's been written, and they haven't been changing them they've just been re- interpreting the way, they've been reducing thresholds, they army corps reduced the length; of the lake and the limits. They're reducing sizes; they're worried about the shoreline. My understanding is they haven't re- written its they've just re- interpreted it. I don't read that stuff. Chairperson Wilcox - actually two people have made The suggestion, at essentially the same time, that there are some members of the public who might be able to enlighten us as we go through the environmental review. So, given that, we have not gotten to the Public Hearing yet, we are still technically doing the environmental review, if you would take `a seat, sir... Mr. Knewstub beg your pardon? Chairperson Wilcox - If you would take a seat, in the audience, take your stuff with you. I'm trying to get rid of you, you may come back, but for now... would someone from the audience like to address the Planning. Board with regard to the environmental concerns? Yes, Ma'am. Absolutely, we want to record you, we want to get your name and address, we want to be able to produce minutes where we spell your name right and everything else. And also it amplifies for the rest of the room. Mrs. Fairbanks - My name is Pam Fairbanks. Mr. Fairbanks - And I'm Paul Fairbanks, and we live at 935 Taughannock Boulevard, which is two. houses down from the proposed dock. 1. Mrs. Fairbanks - And we share a driveway, so there are three houses... Mr. Fairbanks - So we all want to get along. Chairperson Wilcox - Are you to the north or the south? Mr. Fairbanks - We're to the south. Chairperson Wilcox - You're to the south. Mr. Fairbanks - Right. And the Stanton's actually, are out of town, and we watch their house when they are out of town, and so we get their mail, and when we got the letter about the proposals and permits and what not, we contacted them and they were concerned, and so we've assisted them in putting that together, and that's why the 29 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved date on the letter is the 14th, it took sometime for them to prepare that and understand. We had to get them the rules and the regulations from the Town, so they understand how their concerns match with your laws, so that's why that letter is dated as such. Chairperson Wilcox - Help us out here.. Mr. Fairbanks - OK as I understand the Stanton's position, they have no problem with Luke and Mary building a dock out into the lake, but they'd like to see it all moved north 30 feet or so, so that it's not encroaching or angling towards their dock. In other words, if you look at that picture, the dock that goes, the Stanton's dock angles. Chairperson Wilcox— I assume you're referring to this picture? Mr. Fairbanks - Yeah, I think that's the picture that shows the best configuration. Basically, two lines that are going to intersect, if you drew those property lines or the lines of the' docks, they are going to hit at some point if they both went out, and what would seem to make sense is to angle the 955 dock farther to the north. That would also diminish the visual impact and cut down on the navigation problems. Mr. Knewstub alluded to the fact that you could drive the MV Manhattan in there, but the fact is that the Stanton "s would typically waterski in the summer and they would come in an drop the skiers off, and there is no way, you can't even bring a boat in from the north anymore the same way, it's really impacted on that. So they would like to see. that. Mrs. Fairbanks - And I think that all of us knew that there was going to be a dock there, and I think what surprised the Stanton's the most, and I don't think they've seen all of the piles even is that it was at an angle. Because our dock and the Stanton's dock are parallel, so we have access in and out in the same manner, and I think the key thing is what was brought up, is the Stanton's property is actually 55 feet wide. And I know that because my property and their property used to be one parcel, and the 55 feet was cut off and we purchased the remainder, we have about a 160 feet. They basically couldn't build a dock that conformed to the new Town law, because they don't have enough setback, they'd have a skinny little dock. The only thing that really surprised the Stantons is the angle, and like Paul said, we know Luke and Mary, we're really excited about them being our neighbors. I think the only thing that was upsetting to the Stanton's that deviated from what had been said in initial discussions, and we were surprised as well, when we saw the posts go in that way. Mr. Fairbanks - And when I was sitting in the back of the room thinking, a lot of this could have been avoided if, when you consider how to do this in the future, I would suggest that you have the builder go out with a concrete block and tie some balloons that would go up `in the air and actually would show where the dock.is going to be and 30 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved drop 5 or 6 rocks, because it's hard to visualize where things are going to be on the water. The depth is funny; it's hard to see how it affects the view, the angle. And it's a lot easier to move a 50 -pound cement block than it. is a. 25400t pile that's already in the ground. I think that's pretty obvious. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Ms. Balestra I have a question, just a basic question, do you know how long your dock is, how long it extends into the... Mr. Fairbanks - I'm guessing our dock is probably 75 -80 feet long. Ms. Balestra — Is it? OK. Mr. Fairbanks - We're way back on a cove so we're tucked back in, and then... Mrs. Fairbanks - The Stanton's is much shorter. Mr. Fairbanks And then Luke and Mary is even more out on the point. The other thing about the draft of a boat, I have a small fishing boat and I can get that off our lift in the winter if I push it off into the water, there's like this much water, you don't use your boats in . the winter, there's just no water for it. But in the summer, there was the existing boat dock to the North of the property. That dock, people kept a boat in there until they sold the house, and they were able to get it in and out all summer long, so there was plenty of draft for a typical pleasure craft. I don't know what type of boat Luke and Mary drive. And the neighbors who owned the Stanton's property owned a big sailboat and they would moor it off the dock. It was like a moor you put the sailboat in. Chairperson Wilcox - Chris you're all set? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions here? Thank you very much. Would you have a seat? I appreciate it. Technically, we are doing an environmental review. What is the pleasure of the board? Proceed? Do you think we have 4? Send it to the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask them to take it up first? Board Member Mitrano — I like that idea, but I'm open to... Board Member Conneman — I'm opposed to that idea. 31 Planning Board Minutes. November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Talty — What are, give me some options, what are we doing? What can we do? Chairperson 'Wilcox OK, hold on, one at a time please, Kevin's got the floor. Board Member Talty — Can't they withdraw their application until, I like your idea a lot Tracy, give the folks an opportunity to come in. Chairperson; Wilcox, - Well, they wouldn't have to withdraw, we could just simply adjourn to, adjourn o a subsequent meeting, and we could do that. P Board Member Talty — I'm leaning that direction. Board Member Mitrano — That's more what I meant. Chairpersorn, Wilcox,, — Couple things, 1 that gives neighbors. �I'm not sure what we'll hear any different but it gives ,.them the opportunity to speak, number members here, hopefully, which is not necessarily a b definitely allows us to get a majority vote one way or of split right now, us a chance to hear from the than we've already heard tonight, 1. Number 2, it gives us more :nefit one way or the other, but it another. I'm guessing we're kind Board Member Mitrano — It also gives the parties an opportunity. Chairperson Wilcox - Right, unfortunately the pilings are already in the water. Board Member Hoffmann — Not all of them. Chairperson Wilcox, Not all of them, that's right, that will make it somewhat more difficult for the two parties to negotiate and change it. Board Member Talty - Also Fred, going back to the encroachment part of the current dock, what is the legality of that John, with the current Stanton dock that, actually encroaches upon... Mr. Barney Allegedly. Board Member Talty — Allegedly. I think that that needs to be cleared up, right? Chairperson" Wilcox That would be interesting to know, it would be interesting to... Board Member Talty — Because these folks could enforce to rip it out. Can't they do that? 32 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Barney— Wait a minute, I'm not sure I understand this. Board Member Talty — Isn't there an encroachment of the Stanton's dock onto these folks' property? Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Barney - Nobody owns that ground. Chairperson Wilcox That water. Mr. Barney - The state of New York, I think is technically the owner of that.. And if they have encroached on the literal rights that go with it, then yes, they could be I think, required to move. ` I was looking at the pictures; actually, that you brought up, Pam, and I'm not sure which one is really angled from the beach. It almost looks like the new one goes straight out and the Stanton's is angled a little bit to the north. Ms. Balestra - Yes. Mrs. Fairbanks - But the result is... Mr. Barney — I understand that. That's a good question. We're not going to decide who has the right to put the dock where.they're putting it. Board Member Talty Well, my point of the whole thing is, if this process moves forward and the Stanton's sell their property, and a new owner comes in and they want to enjoy th'e lake, and this proposed dock goes in the way it is, let's just say that for sake of discussion that that happens. That the other dock will be rendered, not totally useless, but mostly, useless, so now the new owner is going to come back and they're going to be limited based upon the footage of the lake, and they are going to want to move that dock. I just don't want this to have a snowball type of effect. Do you understand what I mean? Especially if there is some kind of encroachment going on already. Mr. Barney — yes, but I'm not sure but we're wandering into spheres that the lawyers and the judges and, the neighbors ought to take care of themselves. Board Member Talty — That's true, and that's my.point on the whole thing. Chairperson Wilcox — What's this Board's pleasure? We'd like to hear from the neighbor? Raj Board Member Conneman — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox - We're going to have some scheduling problems coming up, Jon, not that that matters at this point, but, because we're not going to get through everything tonight, I don't think. Mr. Kanter - Well, we already were going to have some scheduling problems anyway. Chairperson Wilcox - OK, because I'd like to just adjourn it to the next... Mr. Barney - We could schedule an extra meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, we could schedule an extra meeting, but we'll see. That puts pressure on staff and everyone else because we've got the holidays. I would like to adjourn it, if that's the will of the board, to the next meeting, which is in 3 weeks. Now, I know that that agenda is filling up quickly, if not already chock full. Mr. Kanter - You are correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Nonetheless, we can move it there and we can shuffle the proposed agenda for that meeting, if necessary. But we are also going to have other items from tonight that we don't get to at this point. And then that gives the neighbor, or their agent, an; opportunity to speak on their behalf. And gives this board an opportunity` to try to acquire any other information they may want for that meeting as well. Hold on. Eva, all set, are you comfortable with that? Briefly, you've got to come up to the microphone. You get the last word, absolutely. Mr. Knewstub - I'd just like to say, there is a paragraph here. that says the poles for the new dock are currently positioned ten feet from the extended property line into the lake, it's more like 28 feet. Chairperson Wilcox — OK, you're reading from where? Mr. Knewstub - From the Stanton's letter. Chairperson Wilcox — OK, good. We need a... Mr. Barney`- I'd make a motion to adjourn it to the December... Chairperson Wilcox — did you ever move the SEQR? 34 Planning Board Minutes. November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Mitrano — No, no, no, no. Mr. Kanter — Can I just, please, I would not want to be forced to adjourn it to a specific date, when we've already got committed some, a lot, of big things coming up. I would prefer the board adjourns it to a date to be determined and that we try to schedule it as soon as we can obviously. That would be my recommendation. Chairperson Wilcox — Everybody's nodding? Board Member Hoffmann — I guess that's sort of understood. How can you fit it in to a full agenda? Mr. Kanter — Could I confer with the attorney for a second? Chairperson Wilcox - Yes you may, not that you need my permission. Mr. Kanter I'll say this out loud where everyone can here, we have. not made a SEQR determination, is the reason that we're deferring the action because the board felt there was insufficient information at this time to make the SEQR determination? If that's the case, then I think our time frame is OK, if that's not the case then we do have a time limitation in terms of when this board needs to take action. Board. Member Mitrano — Well, that was my reason for suggesting it, that we needed more information. Chairperson Wilcox — That we needed more information with regard to the environmental review or the site plan review? That's the question. Board Member Mitrano — Environmental review, that's what we were talking about. Chairperson Wilcox — And it's the impact of the dock, in terms of its length, its width, its total area? OK., Pardon, did you say something? Mr. Barney Not that I wanted you to hear. [laughter] Chairperson Wilcox Can I have a motion to adjourn this application to the next available meeting? Board Member Conneman — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — As determined by the director of Planning... 35 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Kanter — And the Planning Board Chair. Chairperson Wilcox Or his or her designee. and the Planning Board Chair, absolutely. So moved by Tracy, so moved by George. Board Member Conneman — I don't care. Chairperson',Wilcox Seconded by Kevin? Board Member Talty — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — OK. You will report. back to your clients? Mr. Knewstub - Yes, at the next... Chairperson Wilcox = OK, I have a motion and a second, yes? Ms. Balestra - While the applicant is still here, just an idea ' of what to do about the Zoning Board scheduled meeting. Chairperson, Can I get through my motion first? Ms. Balestra — Yes, just so you know. Chairperson- Wilcox — OK. I have a motion and a second, further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying Aye. Board— Aye. MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Talty. RESOL VED, p that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourns the submitted application until the next available meeting, to be determined by the Director of Planning, or designee, and the Planning Board Chair. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Talty. NAYS None.. .3 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? Good.. No abstentions. This item is adjourned to the next available meeting. The Zoning Board, yes? Ms. Balestra — It's scheduled for the November 21 Zoning Board meeting for Area variances, which don't have environmental assessment associated with it. Mr. Barney - BZA notice has gone out? Ms. Balestra - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Published today. Ms. Balestra — And the packets went out today. Mr. Barney — Well, I think you can come in. The problem with that is that you may have two thirds of the things that could be heard on that meeting, because the length has not been advertised because it was assumed that that would be dealt with here. So I probably still would go ahead and attend the meeting, go to the meeting and... Ms. Balestra — And adjourn? Mr. Barney — And apply for your variance, and if they want to deal with the length at the Board of Zoning Appeals at another time, we'll have to deal with it another time? Mr. Fairbanks - Does that still create a problem with the Stanton's being there? Mr. Barney — Yes, they are not due back until the 23rd, and the meeting is the 21St. Chairperson Wilcox Well, they do have the opportunity now to have someone speak for them. There are many professionals, whether they are engineers, surveyors .or whether they are lawyers, who can represent them with sufficient notice, unlike us, where we had very little notice. Mr. Barney — They will get another chance here. Anybody, everybody will get another chance here. We are going to get to enjoy this at least one more time. Chairperson Wilcox — You all set? Thank you all very much. Mr. Knewstub - Yes, sir. 37 Planning .Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Chairperson Sigel —Alright, Mark? Let me deal with Mr.. Macera out there. We still have Wedemeyer and we still have the office building, and we still have Mr. Rancich. Does anybody think between now and ten O'clock, we're going to ' get to Mr. Macera and Ithacare? Board Member Mitrano — No way. Chairperson 'Wilcox No way. Does anyone think we're going to get to Ithacare tonight? No's way. We thank you for coming. ... As to what we can re- schedule... Hold on, Mark, Kevin? Board Member Talty — Is there a way that maybe in other business at the end of the night that we can talk about one additional date? Chairperson ,Wilcox - Yeah, to see if it's possible to schedule another meeting. That also depends on staff availability and their ability to get packets out. For those of you who have been either sitting in the audience or out in the hallway, we have been running just,a tad late, just a tad behind. Mark, I can't see you anymore, but thank you for your understanding. SEQR Determination Wedemeyer Equestrian Center, Trumansburg Road, Chairperson Wilcox - At 8:51 p.m. ladies and gentlemen, the next item this evening is a State Environmental Quality Determination for the Wedemeyer Equestrian Center located on Trumansburg Road. Peter, you know the drill, name address and I presume you have a presentation you wish to make, and you have a colleague with you who will also be required to give his name and. address. Mr. Trowbridge - Peter Trowbridge, we're landscape architects here in Ithaca, 1001 West Seneca Street: Mr. Leblew - Brent Leblew, Trowbridge and Wolf, 1001 West Seneca Street as well Chairperson Wilcox Ladies and gentlemen again, if you are interested in seeing the visuals you can come up on either side of us, to make it easier. Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf: As part of the environmental review, what we'd like to do is recap six points that Mike Smith has elaborated on relative to the part II for SEQR. A few things that have changed since the last time we're at the board, we did look at the layout for the interior arena, the exterior arena and training areas, and the primary residence and if you �8 Planning Board. Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved remember, last time, these things were flipped over. We did look at the topographic conditions, appropriate places for grading, and some other issues relative to view. So the site plan has modified since the last time you've seen it. What we'd like to do this evening is, in a broad overview way before I get to the six points, is to talk about topography, wetlands and vegetations, which seem to have some overarching concerns for the project. Looking at Topography first, part of the reason for the modification of the site plan was to try to take the largest areas, the interior arena, the barns, the hunter /jumper training area and place them perpendicular or parallel to the topography, as we started to. look at regarding and cut and fill calculations. So.the flattest, biggest facilities are on the, it's actually a small plateau, a flat area, just east of the woodland. You can see''l in this color rendering where the primary woodlands are. They are around the Southern boundary; there is a large area of woodland to the west. Primarily, however, the land is regrowth vegetation, the farm has clearly been out of active agriculture probably,: about 20 years, so bringing an agricultural use back to the property will sort of rehabilitate some important agricultural land, soils for the area. There are also, as have been identified both by staff and by the county, wetlands to the extreme west of the site, along the westerly boundary in the woodland and in part of the meadow: And I know there is some concern about making sure that none of the site development including trails, impede or impact any of the wetlands. And I know when we talk with TG Millers, what we will try to do is make sure that none of those improvements occur within 100 feet of the wetlands. Not only do they not encroach, but we'd 'make sure that they, as the site plan evolves, that they buffer the wetlands as well. So the six points I'd like to talk about quite briefly as part of the SEQR, is impact to the land, impact to the water (and I think there were at least one or two neighbors last time that were concerned about surface hydrology conditions), impact to agricultural land resources, transportation, noise and odor, and growth and character. The first point, impact to land, while there will be grading as I just mentioned that is required to build these facilities. And these facilities do have to be flat, as you can imagine, the arena and the outdoor training areas, both indoor and. outdoor will be graded so they are relatively flat but well drained, and we intend to. balance all the cut and fill on the site. There is sufficient area and acreage on 70 acres of land to guarantee that there would need to be really no importation of material, nor exportation of material when we do cut and fill on the site. All the spoil for the property would occur, on the site, also we'd make sure that we. stockpile, because the soil is prime agricultural soil, we would stockpile topsoil and respread that in pasture areas and landscape areas. 39 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Relative to the impact of water, the project will not, as I previously said, impact . either the DEC nor the national wetlands inventory wetlands, and the plan, as I said, can accommodate all of the programs outside of all of those designated wetland areas. Based on the preliminary stormwater management study that TG Millers did, there will be two dry ponds, and they've been talked about as ponds, but the reality is they will be closer to wetland areas. They, Wedemeyer's are very concerned about equine encephalitis, and mosquitoes and open water, so you can see from, and we'll come back and talk about this in a little bit, but the preliminary TG Millers designs have looked at typical dry ponds with capacity for 100 year storms, so while there will be water in them, it will be a relatively small amount of water, and most of those areas, if you looked at them, would appear to be upland wetland. Runoff is directed to these through open lawns, and pastures, which is best practice, so that any sedimentation and runoff would occur over vegetated areas. There also was some concern about manure and compost management practices, and we have, as you know, in the cover letter that we provided, October 14th, that I have been talking with Ellen Harris who is the director of Cornell Waste Management Institute, they do have, again some good practices for horse manure which is different from other manure in that it is already bulked, it comes with sawdust and shavings, unlike other animal manure, and so it is readily and easily composted. There:' are compost sites on the property as designated in this location. When we talked toi Ellen Harris, typically these happen in open soil, but we will make sure that any sort of runoff from the compost areas, doesn't impact other surface runoff on site. We'll make sure that any runoff is contained in and around those compost areas. Sedimentation, erosion control practices, as mandated by DEC will certainly occur as well as SPEDES permits for stormwater discharge, and as staff has pointed out, a full stormwater pollution prevention plan, SWPPP notice of intent will occur as a part of this project as well. The third point, impact to agricultural land and resources. As you know, the site is located in Tompkins County Ag district number 2, and a good part of this project is that it will convert abandoned farmland that is rapidly reverting to brushland back to active arable agricultural use. The fourth point, impact to transportation, there are both short and long term issues of traffic on Trumansburg Road. We anticipate about 15 plus or minus workers during construction of the site that will access the site probably during normal business hours. We also. anticipate, one the equestrian center is completes about one trip per hour, but typically this is off -peak. We're looking at feed deliveries, we're looking at employees ,coming and going, it's not the conventional 8 -5 business. During events, such as clinics and shows, we anticipate, as we said, about 5 plus or minus trips per hour, however, these would normally occur on weekends and off -peak hours as well. The fifth point is noise and odor. Noise and odor will be expected from this facility that normally might be anticipated from a farm operation. Most of the noise, .1 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved . and this will have to be obviously looked at during construction, in terms of noise ordinances in the town, but these would occur during construction periods only that would probably happen in the first year, year and a half. The final point is impact to growth and character. Clearly there is a demand for additional services, such as fire. and emergency. We have spoken with the fire chief, we have provided a detail for the driveway that will conform to emergency equipment use. There will need to be a NYS DEC work permit at the driveway entrance. And as we said in the LEAF, the project should generate about 15 temporary jobs during construction, and probably about 5 job permanently, once the operation is up and going. Just a board overview, just to give you some orientation, there is a 60 400t wide frontage on Trumansburg Road, that's the only access point to the 72 -acre site We'll be centering a heavy -duty gravel driveway, at this point; it's not intended to be paved. In the center of that, moving slightly to the north as we traverse up the hill, the steepest topography is associated with that driveway. We will be coming back to the board with subdivision. We're looking at the cluster provision within the Ag. Zone, and we've talked before about having three duplex units, but we will come back to the board to discuss them really as an additional project at a future date. We are including them .these evening for SEQR review, to make sure this is not a project that you see in phases, that you are looking at the full impact of the project this evening, even though those three units will, as I said, be considered as a part of the cluster provision under the residential zone. I think that's the broad overview. Again TG Millers did provide some best practices for water quality, water attenuation issues on the site. And there are some images once again that the owner, the future owners, again the Wedemeyer's .do not own the property, they are trying to get a handle this evening on making sure, before they invest in this, that there is a reasonable expectation that they could develop this project. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review? Eva, go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I am a little bit confused about the water situation. Some papers talk about public water, and then in a letter from you it says there will be on site wells, there was something about a private pumping system from the public water system. Would you clarify for me? Mr. Trowbridge - I appreciate the confusion. There has been lots of exploration over time about''how that might best be handled. The current intention of the owners is to have on site wells with large storage tanks primarily for the horse barn, in case there was a loss of power, that they. would still have an adequate water supply, primarily for the barns. So there is not an intention to utilize public water service at this point. Board Member Hoffmann —, OK. 41 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? Board Member Conneman — I know Peter, that we're not talking about these units. They are going to be rental units, they are not going to be part of the horse farm, in other words.the manager of the horse farm is going to live someplace else? Mr. Trowbridge - No, they are definitely part of the horse farm, and the intent is to have people that work on the farm to live in those units, so they may be rental, but there may be some arrangement between the Wedemeyer's and people that would be living in there, in some of those units, as tenants, but I think that needs to get sorted out in terms of employee, employer relationships. Board Member Conneman — Isn't. it more typical to have the manager and some others to live in an apartment in the barn? Mr. Trowbridge It is, but when we talked to the fire chief, he was very concerned about access to the units and distance from the road, and so part of the decision to put the rental units where they are was a distance from Trumansburg road and fire fighting, and length of cul -de -sac. Board Member Conneman - I think the last time we discussed this, some of the neighbors were concerned about what use might be made of those units over time, like, if I can be blunt about it, renting to students. Mr. Trowbridge - Well, I think if the board would like some sort of designation, that's certainly the prerogative of the board, but at this point, I think the Wedemeyer's intentions are to utilize them as rental units and use them potentially also for employer /employee units. Board Member Mitrano — As a matter of environmental review, though, I don't... Board Member Conneman -Well, I just want to get it on the record, one place or the other. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, the reason they're being shown here is we always ask to show additional phases, even though we may not be approving them at this point, we do want to include them in the environmental review, otherwise you could be accused of, what's the word 'I'm thinking of Peter, in terms of environmental review... Mr. Trowbridge - Segmentation. 42 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox = Segmentation, that's right, so that individually portions of the site don't have a significant impact, but taken together they do. But again, the subdivision required, potentially required, and the review of those units is not included in what we're talking about tonight. OK, Michael, any comments from you regarding the environmental review. Mr. Smith - No. Chairperson' Wilcox — Kevin? Board Member Talty - Maybe I missed it, but is there an alternative access point to get into this facility? Mr. Trowbridge - There is not, there is 60 foot frontage on Trumansburg road, and that's the only, there is two, as part of the parent parcel, as you know, there is one larger parcel just south, that either was, or is currently owned by the Babcocks that did, and continue to, abut open another, but those have been negotiated for two separate owners. Board Member Talty — So doesn't that kind of, so the fire commissioner is fine. Mr. Trowbridge - Yes, they've reviewed this, but again as I said, they're concerned about getting the units sprinkled and making them as accessible as possible, as close as possible to Trumansburg Road. Board Member Talty — I was thinking more about the facilities themselves, you're talking about the units, right? Mr. Trowbridge - Yes, and there was conversation with the fire chief about other sort of fire safety issues relative to the facility, and I think as we get into, we don't have architecturals at this point, but as we do, those need to have additional review and consideration in terms of sprinkling and the effectiveness of that, because it's a high ceiling facility, there is a concern about having either fire hydrants or some form of fire fighting at the facility. Board Member Talty — Wasn't it also mentioned about the ponds being an alternative pumping source. Mr. Trowbridge - Well, the fire chief, I think that was never part of the conversation. But, Brett, you can speak to that. 43 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Leblew - Generally speaking, the chief said that that was not something they preferred to see because they were harder to maintain and upkeep, so they didn't want to see that kind of usage, like a dry hydrant in a pond or something like that. Board Member Talty = It just seems like a lot of the plans we approve, we're always looking for ;secondary access points, and I was a little concerned because it's pretty far from the road, the equestrian facility. Chairperson Wilcox — You are right that we do, that for many, if not all subdivisions, that's an important consideration, that secondary access point, given the number of residents that may be impacted if there is only one entrance road and it is blocked for whatever reason. I won't speculate on what the fire department said, well, I will speculate. It may, have something to do with the number of people living on this property, the fact that there are sprinklers that you don't have in your normal residential subdivision. Board Member Talty — I was thinking of for events, though, like rescue squad, not necessarily, more for fire, but if you have some kind of equestrian event and there are people in that facility and someone needs medical response, that's where I'm going with it, not so much fire. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you get anything in writing from the fire department? Mr. Trowbridge - Yeah, there was a letter provided for sketch plan approval. I don't know if we re- issued it for preliminary, but it was in our original submission. Chairperson Wilcox — That's why I didn't see it. Mr. Trowbridge - We didn't re -issue it for this submission. . Chairperson Wilcox — And it states what you just re- iterated right now? Mr. Trowbridge - Yes, it outlines what we just said? Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — The wetlands are not indicated on this new site plan layouts, could you show, it mentions in the papers a portion of the trails that will be in the wetland area, can you show where that will be, and which wetland that will be? Mr. Trowbridge I think that referred potentially to previous site plans. The current wetland as you can ,see we've outlined in a tone here. It's hard to see here, it's a dash lined in the color, but if you see it in the gray -scale map. Md Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — That one's hard to see from here. Mr. Walker — I think in the packet on sheet L102. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, that makes it easy. Mr. Trowbridge- I'm sorry. Mr. Walker - There's a wetland- designated area on sheet L102. Board Member Hoffmann — But I thought there was another wetland area as well. Mr. Walker — That was the only wetland that the, state designated a wetland. Board Member Hoffmann — We got a letter from the county... Mr. Trowbridge - Is' that different, Mike, than what we've shown? Mr. Smith — the one on the map submitted here is the UNA and the DEC wetlands, but the county, letter also mentions that National Wetlands Inventory wetland which is a different one in a different area, which is primarily in the wooded area. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, and it looks there are some trails going through that area. Mr. Smith — Right. Mr. Trowbridge - And what we'll do is make sure for final site plan approval, that those are modified. Board Member Hoffmann — Excuse me, there was too much rustling here. Mr. Trowbridge - We'll make sure for final site plan because we were unaware of that designation in addition to the wetlands that we had mapped — and we'll make sure for final site plan approval that the trail system is outside of the designated area as indicated by the county. Board Member Hoffmann — OK. [tape is flipped] Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox = I think you said earlier that you would also have a 100 -foot buffer. Mr. Trowbridge - Yes, the, when we're talking about hydrologic conditions,. DEC does require 100 foot buffer for their designated wetlands. Chairperson Wilcox - Anything else? Board Member Mitrano - I'm good. Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Mitrano - I will. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Tracy Mitrano, Seconded? Seconded by the chair. All right, all set over there? Any further discussion_? There being none, all those in favor please signal .by saying "aye ". Board Aye.. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -108: SEAR, Preliminary Site Plan Ayvro va /, - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - . -- - Parcel No. 24 -1 -19.12 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS; 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 19.12, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center including pastures, trails, a hunter jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls ( +/- 23,000 square feet), and a hay storage and machinery barn. The project will also include a residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; Russ & Paula Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved 3. The Planning Board, on November 15, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as 11 adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning Staff, plans entitled "Rendered Site Plan" (LI00), "Grading P lan" (LI01), and "Overall Site Plan" (L102), dated 10114105, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, and "Stormwater Details" (C101), dated 10114105, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and other application material, and 4. The ; Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed 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 action; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED. 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, and that a notice of this determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: A YES.' Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Ta/ty. NA YS.0 None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody opposed? Are there any abstentions? There are none, the motion is passed. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel °' No. 24 -1- 19.12, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center including pastures, trails, a hunter= Jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls ( +/- 23,000 square feet), and `,a hay storage and machinery barn. The project will also 47 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved include a. residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; Russ & Paula. Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. The applicant will be submitting separate plans for approval of three duplex rental units as a future phase. Chairperson Wilcox,— At 9:16, ladies and gentlemen, the next item is a public hearing for consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 14,56 and 1460 Trumansburg, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Number 24. 1- 19.12, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center including pastures, trails, a hunter - jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls (totaling +/- 23,000 square feet), and a hay storage and machinery barn. The project will also include a residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce, & :' Dorothy Babcock,. Owners; Russ & Paula Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. The applicant will be submitting separate .plans for approval of "three duplex rental units as a future phase. Peter, by you sitting there, you have nothing else to say with regard to site plan? OK, ladies and gentlemen, it is the public's turn to speak, thank you for being patient. I believe you've been here before, you know the routine, name and address please. Mr. Pokorney - My : name is Douglas Pokorney, I live at 282 Hayts Road. This is my wife, Denise. Chairperson Wilcox 7 Does she live at 282 Hayts Road? [laughter] m Mr.. Pokorney - A little help with clarification maybe on this wetland, because my land is the big parcel that backs up by the wetland here, and I deer hunt out there, LI hike out there, I run the dog, out there. Chairperson Wilcox — Just turn that thing on. Mr. Pokorney - Just to help this gentleman, from Iradell, this is a designated wetland which comes down through my property and the other parcel for the seven lots that you were discussed from Babcock's at a previous meeting. . Chairperson Wilcox - I believe we have the real estate agent out there. Mr. Pokorney - Right, when that comes down through, that's what comes down through that ravine that was in the back of that 7 acres. This piece here, there's a pine, at this part right here; it's, just a low wet timber. I This year, I could say it was muddy, but normally there is standing water there in that spot there. It's really, I guess from seepage you could say it would connect into this, but that is just a wet bog timberland Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved in there. That's my main thing of clarification if you have _any questions, being I live there. Chairperson,; Wilcox Peter, what are you showing? OK, you're being very friendly, so go ahead, if you want to just... Mr. Trowbridge - I was just clarifying what was just said. There is a wet area that is designated by the county and corroborated by the neighbors. Chairperson Wilcox = Thank you. Ms. Scott - Hi, Denise Scott, adjacent landowner, I guess from our point of view, this would be nothing but an asset to the area. This is an area of Ithaca that was predominantly farmland and agricultural and has since been developed and lots of houses have been creeping in and to see this go back to active agricultural would be very nice. Chairperson Wilcox Could be a lot worse, couldn't it? Ms. Scott -,, [laughs] And the thought of three duplexes on a piece of property that large, not of any concern that I could see in that neighborhood. Chairperson' Wilcox — I'll remind you that that's not part of the approval. Ms. Scott - But since we're talking about it as it's already on there. Chairperson Wilcox — OK, good. Mr. Pokorney - One thing where you talk about the manure and the wetland, .where they now propose the indoor arena is a high spot. When you get to the west line where the trails look like they start, there becomes a dip, then there's another rise. So by time where the in- between part where the trails is, is another high spot that runs this way before it would begin to run down to that wetland. Chairperson Wilcox'— When you say "this way ", what do you mean? [inaudible comment] Mr. Pokorney - This is a high spot along here, then right off of this wet bog goes out just a little bit, but then it goes into a gully .and comes up to .another high ridge right here, before it stops to drop off towards this wetland, so as far as manure and stuff being spread say, from this point, this way, and kept away from this, it wouldn't get down to this wetland, from the ridges that are across this land. For manure, and if you in Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved don't realize what he spoke about the manure, cow manure is sloppy, horse manure is hard balls that don't... so the seepage is not as prolific as cows. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Very good, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? There, being no one, I'll close the public hearing at 9:22. Chairperson Wilcox. closed the public hearing at 9:22 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — What do we think? Thumbs up? All right. All set over here? Board Member Hoffmann — We have very little details for many of the things that we normally like to see details for at this stage. And I understand why, but at the same time I want to be sure that the applicants understand that if there is something I really dislike about the details at the final approval, I want to be able to disapprove maybe even based on that. Normally, when we approve something at preliminary stage, there is no change really; unless there is a major change at the final approval stage. Board Member Mitrano — Are there particulars Eva, that you want to... categories of things? Board Member Hoffmann — No, I can't think of any particulars right now, but there are a number of things; where we don't have the details yet. Mr. Trowbridge - I fully appreciate, Eva, I think the potential owners do as well. They're just at that cusp of deciding whether they're even going to purchase a very expensive piece of real estate, and how much investment were they willing to put in. And they understand, we've shown them what normal site plan approval submissions look like, and so they're fully apprised, and they are certainly very committed to a very high quality project and installation, so I can assure you that the next time you see us, you will have the normal components of site plan development. Chairperson Wilcox — I need a motion. Motion by Kevin Talty. Second? Second by George Conneman. Board Member Conneman — This is preliminary. This is preliminary approval, subject to the conditions as outlined in the draft resolution. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. 50 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 . Approved MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This ` action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 19.12, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center including pastures, trails, a hunter jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls ( +/- 231000 square feet), and a hay storage and machinery barn. The project will also include a residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; Russ & Paula Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf LLP, Agent, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead, agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, on November 15, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared byi Town Planning staff, and 3. The 'I Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 15, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled 'Rendered Site Plan" a100), 'Grading Plan" a101), and "Overall Site Plan" a102), dated 10/14105, prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, and "Stormwater Details" (C101), dated 10114105, prepared bye T.G. Miller, AC., and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the construction of the equestrian center located between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 19.12, including pastures, trails, a hunter jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls ( +/- 23,000 square feet), a hay storage and machinery barn, a residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking, as shown on the plans entitled "Rendered Site Plane" (L100), "Grading Plan" (L101), and "Overall Site Plan" (L102)1 dated 101141051 prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, and "Stormwater Details" 51 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved (001), dated 10114105, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a, submission of a landscape plan and planting schedule, including existing vegetation to be retained, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and b, submission of a lighting plan and cut sheets for all proposed exterior light fixtures, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and c, submission of building designs including elevations, finishes, colors, and other usual building details, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and d, submission of the location, design, and construction materials of all proposed water and sewage facilities, driveways, parking areas, walkways, and fences, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and e, submission of the Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan including but not limited to a detailed site survey and final grading plans, flow analysis, conveyance systems details, pond sizing and routing, and final sedimentation and erosion control measures, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and f, submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering,. prior to issuance of a building permit, and go submission of materials showing the size, location and design of all proposed signs, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and h, submission of separate subdivision application materials for approval of the duplex units is required, and i, revision of the "Overall Site Plan" to label the duplex units as a future phase and that they will require separate subdivision approval, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and j, no disturbance shall be permitted within the NYS mapped wetland in the northwest corner of the property and only the proposed trails shown on plans to be permitted within the National Wetland Inventory wetland on the west side of the property, and include labeling on "Overall Site Plan" to reference this, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and ka submission of plans to include the name and seal of each registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared any of the 52 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved site plan material, including topographic and drainage plans, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and i. submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent for NYSDEC, driveway approval from NYSDOT, and water and sewage system approval from Tompkins County Health Department. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: A YES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Talty, NA YS: None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. Are there any abstentions? There are none. The motion is passed. Mr. Trowbridge - Thank you very much, we appreciate it. Chairperson Wilcox,— Thank you very much for being patient with us tonight. Mr. Trowbridge - Thanks. Chairperson Wilcox — OK. [pause] Chairperson Wilcox — We're down to four. Yes, we're down to four. I'm, not sure, that's your decision. I'm not sure whether we'll get to a point where we'll even make a decision given how long your presentation is likely top be. The question is do you want to, do the presentation for the four, or do you want to do it for a fuller compliment at a later time? Mr. Sieverding — I think the sense is that we want to do it with a full compliment, because if we do the presentation we want to... Chairperson Wilcox - Sit tight. Have Mr. Rancich sit tight for a second, please. Thank you George. 53 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Sieverding — I think if we do the presentation and we don't get to a decision then there is a lot of information that we need to repeat, when, in fact, next time, there maybe three of the board members who aren't here now. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a possibility. Mr. Sieverding — And if we do get through our presentation and get to a decision, then we need four votes. Chairperson Wilcox - You need all four, and I suspect your presentation and questions would last well over half an hour. Mr. Sieverding — It would go beyond 10:00, I mean even trying to do it briefly. is ... [inaudible] Chairperson Wilcox— My thought it for you to go as far as you could and then we would resume it at a later` meeting. If you would like to, I know the cost of having everybody here. [inaudible] Chairperson Wilcox Half time. You guys want to huddle for a couple of seconds? Please do. OK. [pause] Chairperson Wilcox'— Herman? Mr. Sieverding - I think what we'd like to do is postpone, because I think there is a whole context to 'this presentation that really involves the site and the building elevations. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware that, we're not sure at this point when we would re- schedule you? Mr. Sieverding - No. When is the next meeting? Chairperson Wilcox — The next meeting is in three weeks, it's the first Tuesday of December, but we already know we are having problems with... we may have to schedule an additional meeting between now and the end of the year. This agenda was full, we knew it was full going in. The next meeting's agenda is full. There is one item at the beginning that we adjourned to the next, to another meeting. Mark Macera at Ithacare, we've already told him to leave, politely of course. He's like my fourth 54 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved cousin or whatever he is. So, we may discuss tonight if we have a couple extra minutes when we might be able to get an additional meeting in, but I don't think you could leave here tonight knowing when we are going to reschedule you. Mr. Kanter - The problem is we don't have enough of the board members present to even know when... Chairperson Wilcox - We'll have one more back in a second. Mr. Kanter — But that won't be enough to know when we can schedule another meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — That's correct, that's correct. It is not, we can't have... Mr. Sieverding - Is there some chance we can be on the agenda for your next meeting? Mr. Kanter — I wouldn't say no chance, but I'd say it's not likely. Chairperson Wilcox - If he says not likely, I haven't looked at exact agenda for the next meeting, but if he says not likely, it's not likely. Mr. Kanter — It's more likely we may have to try to schedule another meeting before that meeting. Chairperson, Wilcox — Yeah, yeah. Board Member Talty — We do have three weeks before the next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — which sometimes helps. Mr. Sieverding - If we were to start with our presentation now, would we automatically get carried over to the next meeting and continue then? Mr. Kanter —, No, it doesn't work that way. Board Member Talty — That was good, I like your thought process. Mr. Sieverding - I think what will make this even worse is there is going to be an even greater gap in time between what we're doing tonight and when we have the following meeting — and I just don't think that's going to do the project justice. Chairperson Wilcox No guarantee. ss Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Sieverding - No guarantee we'll be on the agenda of your next meeting, is what day? Chairperson Wilcox December 6. That's the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Barney „And then December 20, Chairperson Wilcox Yeah, the. 6th and the 20th are the next two meetings and we already have brought up the idea that we may have to schedule an additional meeting. Mr. Sieverding - In between the 6th and the 20th? Mr. Barney — That's °what we're trying to figure out. Chairperson Wilcox — That's what we have to figure out — it could be between now and the 6th, we don't know, could be, could be. [inaudible]. My apologies, thanks for being patient. Board Member Talty — Just a little straw vote there, Fred. Before Tracy left, we were discussing this exact thing ... and the week after Thanksgiving works for, now George is chiming in... Board Member Conneman — Tuesday is the 29th? Board Member Talty — So preliminary, preliminary, straw vote. Board Member Conneman — I'm just trying to be fair to everybody, I don't know. [inaudible discussion] Chairperson' Wilcox'— For the record, at the request of the applicant and their agents, we will postpone the proposed Pine Tree Road office building until the next available meeting. We'll leave it at that. Mr. Kanter — After other business, we should agree as much as we can on our dates, and then see if we can get the other board members. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a request to extend the time of the previously granted Special Approval for the excavation of fill material on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 274-14.2, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79) Agricultural Zone. It is also being requested to modify the 5.6 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved condition of the previously granted special approval to allow the use of crushing and conveying equipment on the site, to process the mined, gravel for use on other portions of the site, and to increase the maximum number of truckloads of gravel permitted to be removed from the site. John Rancich, Owner /Applicant; George Frantz, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — I had sent Mr. Rancich away, but thank god he didn't leave yet. Are you ready? Alright. At 9:33 ladies and gentlemen, the next item this evening is a Public Hearing for consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a. request to extend the time of the previously granted Special Approval for the excavation of fill material on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (also known as NYS Route 79), Agricultural Zone. It is also being requested to modify the. condition of the previously . granted special approval to allow _the use of crushing and conveying equipment on the site, to process the mined gravel for use on other portions of the site, and to increase the maximum number of truckloads of gravel permitted to be removed from the site. John Rancich, Owner /Applicant; George Frantz, Agent. The floor is yours, George, name and address please. George Frantz, 604 Cliff Street OK, yeah again it's George Frantz, address is 604 Cliff Street, Ithaca NY, and again I'm here as agent for Mr. Rancich. Again, in a nutshell what we'd like to do is actually have the opportunity to extend this special permit, special approval that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, primarily to enable Mr. Rancich to mine gravel for the use in his upcoming project, development project on the land, as well as an adjoining parcel. As well as again, the original approval only permitted the use of a small stationary screen to screen the gravel that is excavated, and we would like to be able to bring portable equipment onto the site that will enable us to actually screen, crush but to create the type of gravel that would be suitable for use in the future public roads, bikeways, and other streets and facilities for the upcoming project. Again, one of the benefits; at least, we see would be that fact that we would be taking off the roads and highways of the Town and the City and Tompkins County a considerable number of dump trucks which : would have to be used to import gravel to the site for the purpose of the development. The two, in my discussion with the Town Staff and review of the State Environmental Quality Review Part Hand Part III, there appear to be two issues in particular that are of concern to the Town. The first is what sort of noise level can we expect from this type of operation, and what I've done is some research over the past several weeks, and what I've found is a gravel plant, and this is based on research done by the British Columbia Worker's Compensation Board. And their research shows that this type of plant could produce noise in the range of 100 -105 decibels on average. Again, for somebody standing right next to the equipment, or I believe they actually say 616 Planning.Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved within 7 meters or 20 feet of the equipment, you can get noise that is actually considerable. Again, 100 -105 decibels, which also by the way, is about the same level as a lawnmower, OK? However, noise is reduced by roughly 50% for every, 10 decibels I should say, or roughly 50% for every 200 feet of distance from the noise source in general, so what I've done for the Board is on the illustration before you, essentially, I put together a noise gradient. The gravel pit is authorized by the DEC permit in the center and you can', see as you get farther from the permiter of the mine, not the center I f the mine, but actually the perimeter of the mine, the noise level actually drops so that when you arrive at the property line on the southern portion, I can show you, here at the northwest corner of Hub's place, Mr. Hubbel's property down to the range of 60 decibels, which is actually slightly less than what is by the way required at the edge of properties in the Town's Light Industrial Zone. It's also less than the noise typically generated by highways, such as Route 79, where the speed limit is 55 miles per hour, the highway itself is generating around 65 -70 decibels of noise continuously. So you're at a point where, essentially, the highway noise is drowning out any noise that would be produced by the gravel processing equipment. So, I think what we can say confidently is that while the plant will be generating some noise, it will not have more than a small to moderate impact, and by the way, the outer line, the dark green line, which shows. again! the boundary of the 40 decibel noise level — 40 decibels is actually the noise level of a typical living room. OK, that's according to another research paper that I have. So, again, people, on the periphery, people even in the Linderman Creek apartments to the Southeast of the site, will be able to hear the equipment, perhaps, however it's going 'to be at a noise level that is not at all uncomfortable or distracting. Another thing I want to say is this is actually quite conservative because this noise .gradient does not take into account the fact that the mine is actually going to be a pit, so the processing equipment is actually going to be below the grade of the surrounding land, which will also attenuate the noise. This noise gradient actually assumes almost the piece of equipment is on a flat piece of land and the noise is spreading out from that location with no attenuation due to the fact that it might be below ground level. The other issue, the question of dust. Actually, the mining permit,. specifically, it's condition number 8 of the mining permit, specifically prohibits the generation of what they call fugitive dust beyond the mine area limits, OK, so and this machinery does produce a small amount of dust during its operation, but the dust tends to be limited to the area in the immediate vicinity of the equipment. And there's also other provisions, for instance, the need to control dust from the moving vehicles within the mine, but the key thing is the DEC prohibits the generation of any dust beyond the limits of the mine area itself. So, the only other... those are the two issues that I think needed to be addressed to the board tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — You all set? OK. Eva? Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Hoffmann - I just want to ask you to clarify a couple of things about what you just said, you said the pit will be below grade, the grade of the surrounding land. How much below? Mr. Rancich - About 20 feet. This is John Rancich, Post Office Box 547, Ithaca NY. My mine floor is regulated at 990 feet above sea level, which will put the mine floor in the area that I anticipate putting this equipment at around 20 feet below the surrounding grade. Board Member Hoffmann — Is that where it will be when the mining operations start? Mr. Rancich - The mine operations have started, the mine operation has already started, the floor of the mine right now is above 990 feet, it will end up going down. approximately 15. feet from its present location. Board Member Hoffmann — How much below ground level is it now? Mr. Rancich - Right now, the mine floor right now is about six feet or seven below ground level. Board Member Hoffmann — And when you did this study of noise levels, did you figure on the mine operation being at the same level of the ground, or below? Mr. Frantz - Actually, at the same level of the ground, yes. That to me was the worst case scenario. Board Member Hoffmann — OK, and then this comparison of the noise level at the outermost boundary being that of a typical living room, could you describe what's going on in that typical living room? [laughter] Mr. Frantz — No, they just say. Chairperson Wilcox - How colorful can you get? Mr. Walker - [inaudible] Mr. Rancich- The below and above, there's quite. a list of things. Chairperson Wilcox Something about 60 or 63 decibels in my mind is sort of average, normal day to day, I'm not sure why that sticks in my mind. 59 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved m Mr. Frantz — Again, they say typical living room is 40 decibels, refrigerator 40 -43. Mr. Kanter - Except for a bad refrigerator. Mr. Frantz —What? Mr. Kanter- Except.for a bad refrigerator. Mr. Frantz — Well, yeah, 50 -65 for bad. OK, they have a quiet room is estimated be 28- 33 decibels, although again, a jump from 33 decibels to 43 decibels is roughly doubling. Mr. Rancich - Radio playing in background. Mr. Frantz — Oh, radio playing in background — 45 -50 decibels. Board Member Hoffmann — I was thinking of something like a television blaring at very loud volume, and I was wondering if that's what was 40 decibels, in which case it would be quite disturbing. Mr. ' Rancich - Well, the refrigerator and the typical living room are both in exactly the same range.. Mr. Frantz - Actually, here Eva, normal conversation is 55 -65 decibels. Board Member Hoffmann — Hmmm, well thank you. Board Member Talty — I just have a couple questions, one is how long will this go for? How long do you feel as though this mining operation is going to be continued? Mr. Rancich - We're asking for my permit to be granted to the end of my DEC permit, which is... Ms. Balestra — August 31, 20082 u Mr. Rancich - Now, I don't believe, as a matter of fact I'm quite confident, that in that whole time 'period we'll actually be running the crushing and screening operation for probably 6 months at the outside,. because my plan would be to hire a custom screener to come in, get the job done, stockpile the material and have him move away. So, it's portable equipment that will be gone, but I don't know exactly the time period, but I'm asking for it to be extended to the end of my mining permit. a .0 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Conneman — And when that is ended, you don't plan to renew the permit, in other words, this is not going to be a permanent gravel permit that is going to be part of your business after you build sky gardens? Mr. Rancich - I don't plan to extend the gravel permit any further than the onset of my site plan approval for the condominiums. My plan would be to simultaneously put the site plan into effect and close the mine. Board Member Talty — Any additional, let's just put any additional stone that you wouldn't need, would you be selling that in the market? Mr. Rancich - If I have stone that I don't need, I would like to be able to sell it. I have been approved for 32 truckloads a day out of there. We requested to increase that, and I'm willing to capitulate back to the 32 truckloads. I would like the planning board to consider those 32 truckloads an average, so that, since I've been operating that mine, I haven't taken a teaspoon of gravel off the site. I would consider I have a lot of days that no truckloads left, so if there's a day that 40 or 50 truckloads leave, I would like that not to be 'a violation, and so long as I stick to an average of 32 truckloads a day. But my anticipation right now is the reason I could have been selling gravel right out of. the bank for these past three years, and I haven't done it because I'm going to need it there. And it's much more valuable to me on site than it is trucked off. I went to see the highway department at the Town of Ithaca yesterday, they got all their specs,. and asked them what they wanted for their road surfaces and their subsurfaces and they were pretty specific about it and they told me they thought it would be a fabulous idea if it comes right off that site and not be trucked in. There will be 3,000- 4,000 truckloads of material having to either come in to do my project,. or, if I'm just selling gravel, that would be going out. I'm trying to make what's in the ground a little more usable for all of us. Board Member Conneman — What would the route be for trucking to Sky Gardens, I assume that's. where you're going to be using it? Mr. Rancich - It would have to be up and down 79. If we were to truck material into build it. Obviously the trucks that are delivering building materials. I've got an idea that I might be able to make concrete right on that site, with a batch plant there which would be a temporary batch plant, which I haven't broached to anyone at all yet, but if I've got the correct materials, and I do, in that approved mine, I have the correct material to ido all of the things onsite, and keep my trucking... obviously I have to truck in refrigerators, I can't make them on the site, but Route 79 will be the only avenue to the property. Board Member Talty — How many residences, have you calculated are within the 1200 - foot perimeter, primary residences? 61 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Rancich - I think there's one. Mr. Frantz — Well, one of the new buildings at Linderman creek. Mr. Rancich - The one to the very back of Linderman Creek. And Hub's place. And Hub's residence, that 1200 limit is on Hub's border, his residence is... Mr. Frantz - Actually, no it's... Mr. Rancich - Oh, it's not? I'm incorrect. Board Member Talty — But it's just on the edge. Mr. Frantz — His residence... Board Member Talty — Is there a mathematical calculation that the further down you go, the less Dba's there are? Mr. Rancich - Further down, you mean, in elevation? Board Member Talty - That's correct, because right now you did from a flat surface and you're going out. So, if you go down each foot or ten feet or whatever... it obviously dissipates, but do you know how much? Mr. Rancich - I'm positive there's a calculation, but I don't know what it is. Mr. Frantz — You're talking about down into the mine. Yeah, I didn't get into that calculation, but it's: something that could be done. I mean. they do it, actually many times now with new highway projects and the sound barriers and the like. Board Member Talty - I mean really this is worst -case scenario. Mr. Frantz — This is the worst case. This is assuming that we have a gravel processing plant on a flat plane. Chairperson Wilcox Talk to me about reclamation when you're done taking. Mr. Rancich - My reclamation, is already obligated, I'm obligated to reclaim by the DEC permit, I have posted a 10,000 cash bond with the DEC back at the... well, not at the initiation of.the permit, but at the initiation of the operation which is when I bought the land from Alfred Eddy 2 and a half years ago, I had to send the DEC $10,000. They have required me to push back and retain and seed all the topsoil, so I have about an 62 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 . Approved acre of the 5 acre lot cleared now, I've shoved all of the topsoil into a pile at the very limit of the line, I had to seed it so that grass would grow relatively immediately. That is considered; those piles of topsoil are stored there. As I pull this, pull more and more material out, I will .certainly be removing more topsoil, storing it in the same fashion that the DEC has required, and then I'll have to reclaim that mine at the end of the permit by pushing the topsoil back in. In my instance, things may change a little bit, because I'm anticipating a site plan approval which will give me a different way to look at the whole project and some other things that are happening up there and the reclamation of the mine will be an integral part of the site plan for the condominiums. I'm really looking to be able to stockpile on that site, the most valuable material I can make, and in order to do that I have to crush it and screen it. Chairperson Wilcox Staff, there's staff, I'll do that. The draft resolution in front of us does not make provision for the additional equipment on site and the addition truckloads. So, is there a reason why the resolution as drafted does not have that there? Ms. Balestra — Because at the time the resolution was being drafted and the environmental assessment was being done, we didn't have the information regarding noise and dust, and because we didn't feel comfortable making an environmental determination, we were going to suggest that the Planning Board consider extension of the special approval as it stands and not the additional elements of it. We wanted to allow the Planning Board to discuss the truckload issue as well. Chairperson Wilcox`— Very often when we see something like this, the Town Planning Staff is making a recommendation. From what you just said, it may have been a recommendation, but now we have different information available? Ms. Balestra - Right. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not trying to put anybody on the spot, I'm just trying to understand what's going on. Mr. Kanter — I guess there are a couple more questions that we could think about, one would be, Mr. Rancich mentioned that you would start mining crushing material and then storing that on site until such time as you get approvals to build the condominium project. Do you have any plan for how those will be stockpiled and protecting adjacent land, because I don't think the previous mine permit contemplated that type of on -site storage. Mr. Rancich - The [inaudible] mine permit assumes the stockpile of some materials. In this case, it was uncrushed and unscreened material, which would just be piles of raw earth that would then be allowed to remove from the site, trucked down the road at 32 63 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved truckloads a day. The net to me on that gravel coming out of the ground is about. $50- 60 a truckload, so $1500 a day on what's just sitting there in the ground. The stockpile that I would make would be a huge item, a huge pile of item 4, which is the material that I need the most for the road faces, not only the public roads, but my own private roads, and then the offshoot materials out of manufacturing that item 4, will be number 2 stone, number 1 stone, and I'm anticipating, some amount of sand, There also will be topsoil coming out of that process — it will be put in the topsoil reserve piles to be used in the reclamation process. Chairperson Wilcox John, did you finish? Mr. Rancich — I think I'm done. I don't know. Did I not answer your question? I don't think that I did. Mr. Kanter I would be looking, myself, to see some more detail about how and where those things would be stored and how much there would be stored. Mr. Rancich — Right now, Jon, by the DEC permit I am obligated to store my material within the mine boundary. I had an idea that I was not able to process any material in the mine site. My mine is only 5 acres. I thought that if I moved all of my processing material onto my farm, which adjoins it by an inch that I might circumvent some things.. I don't know that I can store material outside the mine site on my farm. I am planning to store it within the mine. I'm going to have a number of piles of different material. stored there, which will be within the runoff requirement for the entire mine. So I don't think I need to extrapolate too much on exactly where the piles will be because at this point I don't know. Mr. Frantz — They would have to be within the mine area. Ms. Balestra — They are required by the permit to be within the mine area. Mr. Frantz — Yes, and again, logically, because they will be within the stormwater pollution prevention facilities, the silt fencing, etc, that the DEC requires. Mr. Kanter — I guess the question also, how long they would be stored. I mean, part of that obviously has to do with how long the approval process is going to be for the project, but... Mr. Rancich — All the materials are stored there. right now. Every bit of material that I want to store is already stored there. It is just all meshed together. All I want to do is take exactly the same materials that are there right now and store them in different piles. , Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 , Approved Chairperson Wilcox — So right now they are underground. They might even be under nice topsoil. What you want to do is create some piles that might create visible issues that could potentially could runoff issues. Mr. Rancich — Well the runoff would be inside the mine. Chairperson Wilcox I know. I'm just counteracting your very poetic way of saying you are just moving the, material that is already there. Mr. Rancich — It is all there. My mine permit now allows me to remove all of the topsoil in the 5 acres. Since I am not moving a lot of gravel around right now, I want to keep that there. I have removed an acre of topsoil. I can remove 5 and mine the entire 5 acres and I can operate mining operation. I can scoop it up and move it around. I can dump it through a stationary conveyor and get all the big boulders out of it and then make a pile of rocks and a pile of this other material that falls through the stationary screen, which I am allowed to do right now. I would like to be able to take that process, make it a, more valuable material to myself and the Town in terms of these future roads that are going to be there, waterlines, sewer lines, all the infrastructure needs the right kind of material and I can make it there, store it there. When I am able to get a site plan approval, then we will be building roads and moving it out of the pile that is in the mine and start putting it where the roads are going to go and the waterlines and sewer lines. Chairperson Wilcox — So why do you need more truck trips? Mr. Rancich I am not exactly sure how that happened. I have to tell you the honest truth. I think it was a little bit confusion between George and myself. It is in there. I am wiling to. capitulate on the truck trips. I have no problem with that because at 64. truck trips per day I will exhaust the 90,000 cubic yards in about 6 months. So I don't need that. I'll cave in on that. I would like, in the event, that the Town decides we don't want any public roads, we are not going to put a condominium, all you can do Mr. Rancich, is build one house for yourself then I'm going to have some gravel for sale and I want to be able to move it off the site. Board Member Conneman - You said previously that you wanted an average of 32 truckloads. Mr. Rancich — I would like the permit to be amended to say. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a real problem with averages. Mr. Walker — One day you can move a lot of materials. 65 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Rancich — My request was to average it. I have had three years of no truckloads and if all of a sudden if somebody came up and counted 50 truckloads, I would like to not be in violation if that was the case. Board Member Conneman — You can't go back. Chairperson Wilcox — This is a recommendation to the Zoning Board. There are only four of us. Because this is a recommendation we need four to actually provide a recommendation. Board Member Conneman — Mr. Rancich has seen the resolution? Mr. Frantz — We have seen it. Again the one that actually is a problem is e. Mr. Rancich — The other thing that is not in this paper in front of you, but I would like to address so that You all know, my mining permit, and I believe that this has to do with my ability to take trucks in and out of there ends October 31St and I can't start until. April 1st. I am totally happy with that in terms of trucking material in and out. I would like to be able to work inside the mine since that is where the work is going to be during those months. Those are the most ecologically sound months to work in. There, is no rain. There is no runoff. I'm not positive why that restriction was put in. Remember, this initial permit that I am operating under was granted to someone else, not me. Ms. Balestra — The Zoning Board imposed that specific condition. Attorney Barney —1 think it was consistent with what the applicant at the time was saying they were going to be doing. I think it was just a... Mr. Rancich — And they were going to be just trucking all gravel out. I want to be able to operate this tomorrow if the weather is nice and my equipment is there, I would like to be able to go in work. Mr. Kanter — Well, you can't do it tomorrow because you have to go to the ZBA. Mr. Rancich — I would like to .be able to work New Year's Day if I want to get started. Mr. Frantz — And one of the things, to, is the construction season just because of the advances in technology is a lot longer than is was 20 years ago, 30 years ago, but really the wintertime operations are not going .to have any significant adverse impact and in many regards, yes, winter is actually, people don't realize it, but it is the drier part of the year and hence you do have that reduced danger of runoff.. Chairperson Wilcox I'm going to try to build some consensus here. .T51 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Board Member Talty I'm good to do. Chairperson Wilcox - What about the additional equipment on the site? Board Member Talty — I don't have a problem with that. Board Member Conneman — It's going to be in the mine? Mr. Frantz — Yes. Chairperson0ilcox - Okay. Months of operation? Board Member Tatty — I don't have a problem amending to what he is asking for. It makes sense in a way. Chairperson Wilcox Do we want to defer to the Zoning Board? Attorney Barney— Well you make your recommendation to the Zoning Board. Mr. Walker - ...(not audible) ... trucking concerns because of the weather conditions on the road and so on. Chairperson" Wilcox - Is there a reason to extend it ... .do you want the ability to operate 12 months out of the year? Mr. Rancich — I would. love that. I don't care if you let me drive trucks in and out 12 months out of the year, except to deliver my personnel there. I am . happy to operate within the confines of the mine and my own property for the winter. If you want to restrict me to any trucks leaving there have to be between April. 1st and October 31St that is fine. Chairperson Wilcox — I think the mud will restrict you. Mr. Rancich — I'm just really easy to get along with. Board _Member Hoffmann — I can anticipate a problem of trucks bringing a lot of stuff out onto the road at certain times of year and I would. definitely want the hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m: weekdays only to stay. Mr. Rancich — That is not a problem.. Ms. Balestra — That is outlined in the DEC permit, too. 67 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Chairperson Wilcox = So lets try to do this. Condition e, which says no processing of material other than mining screenings, is to be... Attorney Barney — No processing of material outside the mine. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Which would allow. the equipment inside the mine area. Okay. Ms. Balestra — So you would eliminate, "other than some minor screening as proposed by the applicant "? I Chairperson Wilcox —Yes.. Board Member Conneman — And the mine is considered to be an acre or five acres? Mr. Rancich — Five acres. Mr. Kanter — The mine area as defined in the DEC permit. Chairperson Wilcox And that weekdays only, we will remove board over here. For the Rec hearing. There is nobody here, and .bring the matter back to the the operation, though limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.me any limitation in terms of months. I get nods of the Drd, this is a public hearing. I did open the public therefore I will close the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. board. Board Member Talty — We still have to outline how many trucks? Chairperson Wilcox — Trucks? Thirty -two max per day. Motion from somebody? Motion from Kevin. Seconded? George, Questions? Mr. Kanter — The ZBA will have to make a SEQR determination. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes they will. Mr. Kanter — I'm just wondering, George, if you have the specs on the crusher equipment that you could bring to the ZBA meeting just so that they have that documentation to go along with the noise level outline that you provided. Mr. Frantz —We don't have any specifications on the machinery. Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Mr. Kanter - It would not have to be necessarily the one that you are going to use, but something that is a representative sample of what you will be using. Mr. Rancich — It would have to be typical. Mr. Frantz — Again, what I did is I did research on research led me to a report that laid out noise construction equipment and I could supply that. noise in general and part of that generated by various .types of Mr. Kanter — Maybe, just bring copies of that to the ZBA meeting. Mr. Frantz - Okay. Absolutely. Ms. Ritter — Does the Town have a decibel meter? Mr. Walker — Yes we do. Ms. Ritter — Could it be that perhaps that it turns out that this exceeds the noise that is assumed is going to be there that perhaps some mitigation could be conditioned upon some mitigation? `I have seen some gravel pits have some kind of screening or something that... Mr. Frantz —, Generally it is the visual screens. Ms. Ritter But they have something. I don't know what you could do for mitigation, but if it is found that exceeds this to a large degree, maybe some kind of mitigation could be required. Mr. Kanter — That made me just think, though, that also maybe if you wanted to could add a condition that would basically reflect the limits that are shown on this diagram if you are comfortable with these limits? Mr. Walker — Just say that the noise limits will not exceed.... Mr. Rancich — The DEC permit has a restriction on noise. Any gravel pit that is creating too much noise, the DEC guys come into the gravel pit with their decibel meters and they stand here and then they walk backwards. If there is a neighbor that is angry and just wants to complain, the DEC, it is their job to come in and address those problems. They will walk around with decibel meter and say, yup, you are making too much noise or they will say to the complainant, I am sorry, but they are within the rules and there is not a violation. That is the DECs job. Mr. Kanter For the board's benefit, can you show the board where in the permit? .• Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 .Approved Ms. Balestra — Its on the last page of the DEC permit under special conditions, number 15c. All it says is mining equipment shall be operated in a manner as to reasonably minimize noise levels during operating hours. Chairperson Wilcox - There is no exact decibel limit. Ms. Balestra — There is not an exact decibel level mentioned.. Mr. Rancich — The DEC does have their rules and I've watched them do it. Mr. Walker — The biggest noise generator is usually on a crushing or screening machine is the engine and when you pull the exhaust off it and get a straight stack that makes the most noise. Chairperson Wilcox So what was being proposed with regard to. the noise gradient map that we were provided with? Attorney Barney — An additional condition be included that the noise emanating from the pit not exceed the noise as shown on the attached noise gradient, John Rancich Gravel Pit diagram submitted as part of the application. Chairperson Wilcox — Works for me. Mr. Kanter - I hope that noise meter we have still works. Chairperson Wilcox — John Barney, you're all set in terms of the changes? I. Mr. Kanter — I would still recommend bringing like a typical:..to the ZBA meeting just so that they have something to refer to. I think that would help. Chairperson Wilcox - We all set? I have a motion and second. The board votes on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -110: Rancich Grave/ Excavation, Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Aayrova/, Mecklenburg Road MOTION by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS: will Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved 1. This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a request to extend the time of the previously granted Special Approval for. the excavation of fill matenal on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 271 -14.2, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Agricultural Zone. The action also includes a request to modify the condition of the previously granted special approval to allow the use of crushing and ,convey /ng equipment on the site, to process the mined gravel for use on other portions of the site, and to increase the maximum number of truckloads of gravel permitted to be removed from the site. John Rancich, Owner /Applicant; George Frantz, Agent, and 2. This is an Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review, and . 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on November 15, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II, prepared by the Town of Ithaca; maps entitled "Mining Plan and Base Map" dated 113100 and "Reclamation Plan" dated 113100, a NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources Mining Permit, dated 112412000, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED 1. That the Planning Board, in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the extension of the existing Special Approval, determines the following: a, the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the. community, in harmony with the general purpose of the Town. of Ithaca Zoning Code and the specific purposes, are being promoted, and b, the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, and C the proposed use and the location and design of proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and d, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts su>fic%nt to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and e, operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, 71 Planning .Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved illumination, or other public nuisance, than the operation of any permitted use in the zone in which the use is located, and f, community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and g, the proposed use, facility design, and site layout comply with all of the provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations of the Town, and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and h, the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses is safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and i, the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and j, the lot area and access are sufficient for the proposed use, and k, natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices, and existing drainage ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and 1, to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned extension of the existing Special Approval be granted, subject to the following conditions: a. That 'sediment and erosion control, and dust control methods in compliance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines for controlling erosion, siltation and pollution to all waterbodies and wetlands and as approved by the Town Engineer, continue to be practiced throughout the project, and b. That the proposed Town of Ithaca special approval and permit expire on August 31, 2008, when the New York State DEC-issued Mining Permit No. 7 -5030 -00110 /0001 for this project expires, and 72 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved Cr That the applicant contact NYS Department of Transportation and obtain any necessary DOT permits for the project and submit to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department a copy of any permits needed and so obtained, prior to the commencement of excavation, and. d. That the total volume of material to be excavated from the site shall not exceed 90, 000 cubic yards, and e. That no processing of the material outside the mine area as determined in the DEC permit, be allowed, and f. That there be no more than four truck trips (one trip being ingress and egress) per hour and no more than 32 truck loads removed per day, and g, That the project area be reclaimed as set forth in the reclamation plan submitted to DEC in the DEC Mining Permit No. 7 -5030- 0011010001,. and h. That the hours of operation be limited to 8:00am to 5 :00pm, weekdays only, and i, That if a reclamation bond is required by DEC, that a copy of the same be provided to the town prior to commencement of excavation, and if a reclamation bond of at least $10,000 is not required by the DEC, then such a bond in at least that amount (or if a lesser amount is required by DEC, then an amount equal to the difference between the amount required by DEC and $10,000) be supplied to the Town prior to commencement of excavation, and j, That all operations be in accordance with the representations and materials in the application provided by the applicant to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, and in accordance with all requirements and conditions imposed by the DEC in any mining permit issued by the DEC, and k, That the sounds emanating from the mine not exceed the decibel levels at the distance shown on the. document entitled "Noise Gradient John Rancich Grave/ Pit" submitted to the Planning Board as part of the application. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: AYES,• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Talty. NA YS: None. 73 Planning Board Minutes November 15, 2005 Approved ABSENT.• Mitrano. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Board Member Conneman term's is ending December 31, Mr. Kanter ' Member Conneman, to submit a letter to Supervisor Valentino whether or be interested in serving another term. asked Board not he would The Board discussed their availability fora special meeting. It was decided to check with board members on their availability for Tuesday, November 29, 2005. Staff asked the board to hold on to their materials from this meeting for the special meeting. AD3OURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the November 15, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 10:20 p.m. Ily submitted, Carrie Co tVs4 tmore Deputy Town Clerk 74 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, November 15, 2005. AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Presentation of the draft scoping outline 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 -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 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. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Bowes Dock & Boat Lift, 955 Taughannock Blvd, . 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed dock and boat lift project located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -1, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing dock and constructing a new dock (8' x 60' with a 10' x 24' "L" extension at the end of the dock) with a 14' x 24' covered boatlift. Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron Knewstub, Agent. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Wedemeyer Equestrian Center, Trumansburg Road. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 19.12, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian, center including pastures, trails, a hunter jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls ( +/- 23,000 square feet), and a hay storage. and machinery barn. The project will also include a residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; Russ & Paula Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. The applicant will be submitting separate plans for approval of three duplex rental units as a future phase. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Pine Tree Road Office Building, Pine Tree Road. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing barns and related abandoned buildings and. constructing a new three story,, +/- 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell University.. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant. OVER TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS . Tuesday, November 15, 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, November 15, 2065, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y.,.at the following times and on the following matters: 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed dock and boat lift project. located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -1, Lakefront Residential Zone.. The proposal involves demolishing the existing dock and constructing a new dock (8' x 60' with a 10' x 24' "L" extension at the end of the dock) with a 14' x 24' covered boatlift. Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron Knewstub, Agent, 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 19.12, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center including pastures, trails, a hunter jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena and stalls ( +/- 23,000 square feet), and a hay storage and machinery barn. The project will also include a residence for the owners, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce & Dorothy Babcock, Owners; Russ & Paula Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent.' The applicant will be submitting separate plans for approval of three duplex rental units as a future phase. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing barns and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000 square foot 'office building for Cornell University. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping; walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant. 8:30 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a request to extend the time of the previously granted Special Approval for the excavation of fill material on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -14.2, located on the north side of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Agricultural Zone. It is also being requested to modify the condition of the previously granted special approval to allow the use of crushing and conveying equipment on the site, to process the mined gravel for use on other portions of the site, and to increase the maximum number of truckloads of gravel permitted to be removed from the site. John Rancich, Owner /Applicant; George Frantz, 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!Iby 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, November 7, 2005 Publish: Wednesday, November 9, 2005 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE: November 15, 2005 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION is ten �� -✓ le r✓ eVv4 / 1 ' oc 0e �� -� s %C %% t l t �� Z� c vo) qU C 1' C nnS ck c {tS wr,�lcv F I (�/ S �Zo � ' 1+&Z , ? /_" C%'V- L i� - a M14 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGWIN SHEET i DATE: November 15, 2005 f (PL EASIE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) U PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT A DDRESS/A FFILIA TION : it II h TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION 1, 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. commencing at /:UU Y.M.. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board . 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting I Date of Publication: November 7, 2005 November 9, 2005 A- (30 � Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) I! Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9`h day of November 2005. I'I Notary Public CONNIE F CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 OC"