Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-09-05FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NY 14850 PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Board Members - Eva Hoffmann, George Conneman, Tracey Mitrano, Larry Thayer, Rod Howe, Kevin Talty STAFF: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner, Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk EXCUSED: None CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 28, 2006 and August 30, 2006, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on August 30, 2006. 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 At 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. Closed at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed replacement sign for the St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes replacing the existing 24 square foot, six -foot tall sign with a new +/- 32 square foot, seven -foot tall sign for the church. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner; Patricia Cote, Applicant. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 2 Chairperson Wilcox — Is Ms. Cote here this evening, or someone else? Want to come up an join us. Is this where they asked for volunteers and everyone took a step back, and you were left? . Patricia Cote, 302 St. Catherine Circle Ms. Cote — Totally by default. I'm the one on the application, so I get it. Chairperson Wilcox — We will try to make this as painless as we can. Name and address please. Ms. Cote -- Work address or home? Chairperson Wilcox — I will take, a professional address, yes. Ms. Cote — Patricia Cote, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Ithaca, New York, Chairperson Wilcox — Can you provide a brief overview of what's being proposed this evening. Ms. Cote — We currently have a sign that is very old and kind of outdated and we'd like to replace it with a new, larger, prettier sign as soon as possible. Is that condensed? (Laughter) Board Member Mitrano — Let's give her an ward for the most concise.... Chairperson Wilcox — That will do. And you realize that you are coming before the Planning Board for a recommendation to the Zoning Board and then at some point you will go to the Zoning Board and actually apply for the appropriate variance. Ms. Cote — Yes, on the 18th Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, questions to the applicant with regard to the proposed sign. Board Member Conneman — I'll admit that you have a sign that is sort of tired. My question that I have is why a higher sign. This is the only sign that I could find in this residential neighborhood that goes quite aways around this. Till you get to the Village of Cayuga Heights, till you get to way up Warren Road. Ms. Cote — Only because there is a little arch on the new sign that we are proposing. It's a little bit higher where the current sign is flat across the bo... Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 3 across the top. Because this one curves up, it gives it a little bit more height in the center. Board Member Conneman — How many items are you going to hang below? I noticed that you had the on... Ms. Cote — One. Just the one. Board Member Conneman — Just the one. Ms. Cote — Just one. Board Member Conneman — Forever. Ms. Cote -- For as long as we have the clothing drop -off box on our property, yes. Chairperson Wilcox — You're not planning on just rotating it with other signs? Ms. Cote — No, actually there's a plaque on there for the times of the Mass schedule that we can replace which just pops off and we can put another one on.. It will not take up any more space on the signage. Board Member Conneman — I don't care if you replace it, the issue is whether you hang another thing below it. Ms. Cote — Yup. We're not going to hang any others but that one. Chairperson Wilcox - And the used clothing sign is detachable it looks like? Ms. Cote — Yes Chairperson Wilcox —.Yes, so... should you not offer that you could put something else there in its' place of the same size. Ms. Cote — If we need to. Sure. Board Member Conneman — Its' not going to be illuminated? Ms. Cote — No, no it's not going to be illuminated. Board Member Hoffmann— I was also. wondering why the increase in size because its not that large an increase but now I understand it's because of that thing on top. But you know, when I look at the photos, it looks like there is a rather large tree with branches hanging top of your new sign would be hidden. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 4 over the top of the existing sign so the Ms. Cote — Fortunately that tree belongs to us and we can trim up that ... trim it so it...trim it back so it is not a visual hazard for either the road or the sign. Board Member Hoffmann— Is that part of the plan then? To trim some of the tree branches? Ms. Cote Possibly. It depends on... because the view ...when I park at the corner to turn, the view is not obstructed of the current sign and pretty much the top part of the sign is just going to be our little emblem for the icon of the church so it's not going to be distracting from the major information on the sign, like the Board Member Hoffmann -- Well I guess the reason that I raised it was if it's just the content of the sign that you want to update, I don't see the need to increase the size if the top might be hidden ... the top of the new sign... because then it doesn't serve any person. Ms. Cote — Well I don't think that ... the branches probably will be cut back so that there will be no obstructed view. I'm sure that that is what we will do. But as far as the design of the sign, I really didn't have much say on that, the boss did and I just get to come here and fill out the paper work and ask you folks for permission to do it. Board Member Thayer— Do the posts enter into the square footage? Ms. Balestra — Yes they do. Chairperson Wilcox -- Chris is nodding her head Ms. Balestra — Yes.. Chairperson Wilcox — Because of the way that we measure signs? Ms. Balestra — Say again. Chairperson Wilcox — Because of the way in which we measure signs? Ms. Balestra —Yes, Board Member Thayer— I don' think that's necessary. I have no problem with the square footage or the height in this particular case. Board Member Hoffmann — wonder why is it necessary... Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 5 No. I don't have a big problem, I just think... I just Board Member Thayer— Well yeah, the branches definitely need to be trimmed, especially if it's going to be higher. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, I'm sorry, what was the question you asked? Board Member Talty — The current signage vs, the new signage...I got the square footage and the height, but what about the width? In other words, is it going to utilize the same signposts or is it going to come out further? And the only reason I am asking that is ... potential visibility concern pulling out into the road. Ms. Cote — It will ... we would have to replace the posts but we are going to start from the current front existing post and work back. Board Member Talty — Okay. Ms. Cote — So it doesn't get any closer to the road. Chairperson Wilcox — Other questions, discussion? Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. and invited the public to speak. There being no one, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:13 p. m. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? Board Member Hoffmann— Well the only thing that I would like to add has to do with the next application too and that is; I think it would be very useful to have in the Zoning Ordinance, if it were possible, or attached to it ... a couple of examples of how to figure out the size of the sign for applicants when they try to design and perhaps build the signs. Board Member Thayer— And eliminate the posts ... as part of the sign.. Board Member Hoffmann — Well no. I just think the language has to be clearer and a couple of examples given so that one could say; In this sign the posts are included and then a sign with the posts behind or whatever then they are not be included. Board Member Thayer— Because if the posts were behind in this particular case, the square footage would go down. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 6 Board Member Hoffmann— Right. I know. And this seems to cause a lot of problems every time we have a sign. Certainly, in my mind, I am totally confused until somebody on staff explains it to me and it was very well explained in one of the applications and that's what ... I just thought I would like to suggest that we get something like that for applicants, whether it's in the Zoning Ordinance or it's something that we can hand to them as a separate sheet, with clarifications. Mr. Kanter — We have actually talked about that and actually it would certainly help if you jointly with Staff made a proposal to Codes and Ordinances that we do something like that because we also think there are some clarifications in the wording of the law that need to be made. I think illustrations is probably a great idea to help with some of these kinds of things. But there are a few ... this one is one of the vague wordings of the law that need to be addressed. It's a policy decision as to whether you want to include the posts as square footage or not when they are outside the sign but that's been the age old interpretation for many years that the Town has taken. So, if we don't want to do that then we should say so, and if we do want to do it then we should clarify it ... what it is. And there are a couple of other provisions in the law that should probably similarly be addressed. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't want to propose it in the middle of another resolution, but when we have voted on this one, maybe I can do it. Mr. Kanter — Interestingly, we have been talking about that as well, so... Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, are you comfortable with language? Ms. Brock— I had some suggested additions to the,language. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Ms, Brock— In paragraph b ... that the replacement sign be installed in the same location as the existing sign and its' appearance and construction conform to the above referenced plans. So I would add the latter phrase there... Its' appearance and construction conform to the above referenced plans. Add paragraph c ... that the replacement sign no be illuminated and add paragraph d ... the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the sign. Because the sign is not exempt, it doesn't meet the requirements for an exempt sign, it is therefore a regulated sign and regulated signs need site sign permits. Chairperson Wilcox — Isn't that by ... since they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals anyways, isn't that being redundant? Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 7 Ms. Brock— No, they need to get the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and once they have that they will be able to go to the enforcement officer and get the permit. Chairperson Wilcox — Tracey, and Kevin, changes acceptable (Nods) Board Votes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -082: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Sign Variance - St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1 -10 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance for the proposed replacement sign for the St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No71 -1 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes replacing the existing 24 square foot, six -foot tall sign with a new 32 square foot, seven -foot tall sign for the church. St. Catherine of. Siena Church, Owner; Patricia Cote, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "St. Catherine of Siena Sign/Two -Sided 48" x 72"", received on August 1, 2006, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for a sign variance for a 32 square foot replacement sign for the St. Catherine of Siena Church, be approved, subject to the following conditions: a. granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required sign variance, and Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 8 b. that the replacement sign be installed in the same location as the existing sign, and C, that the replacement sign not be illuminated, and d. the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the sign. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Board Member Hoffmann — So may I make a proposal according to the wording that Jonathan Kanter just suggested? That we request the Codes and Ordinances Committee to look. into clarifications in the sign law. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we do that? Board Member Hoffmann — I just thought that we would do it now so I won't forget it. Board Member Conneman — If it involves a motion and a second then do it know. That seems quite simple. Do it now. I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — Would somebody like to make the motion. Board Member Conneman — I'll make the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry I was doing something else. I'm sorry ... did you say you wanted to do it or did you actually make a motion? Board Member Conneman — She made a motion. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. I was reading something... Board Member Hoffmann — I did it in a very informal way. Chairperson Wilcox -- I have a ... since I didn't listen... since I didn't hear it ... I want to make sure I have a valid motion. I have a second from George Conneman. Would you repeat it for my benefit, please. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 9 Board Member Hoffmann — I said I would like to make a motion that based on the wording that Jonathan Kanter just used, that we make a recommendation to the Codes and Ordinance Committee... Ordinances Committee to look into updating and clarifying the language of the sign law and I didn't say but I will add now; and perhaps including some examples and diagrams of how signs are to be measured. Does that do it? Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Eva, George you second that as revised? Board Member Conneman — Yes. Board Votes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 083, Proposal to the Codes and Ordinances Committee Regarding Clarification of Sign Laws MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by George Conneman BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends that the Codes and Ordinance Committee consider updating and clarifying the Sign Law to eliminate confusion caused by vagueness and conflicting guidelines, in particular, with regard to determining the permitted area of freestanding signs, among other subjects, And, that the Town Planning Board recommends the addition of illustrations, pictures and /or diagrams to help applicants understand the differences in sign measurements. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson opens the next Agenda Item at 7:20 p.m, and reads the public announcement. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed installation of one sign on each parcel for The Overlook at West Hill complex, located at the intersection on Trumansburg Road and West Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -4 -14.23 and 24 -4- 14.24, Multiple Residence. The proposal includes installing two +/` 28 square foot signs at the entrance from Trumansburg Road. Overlook at West Hill LP, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Agent. Stacey Whitney, 200 West Hill Circle with the Overlook at West Hill Mr. Whitney — I have the same problem as the previous applicant. We purchased two signs, 24 square feet by code ... I was given the code by Kristie Rice and the code says "One free - standing sign not exceeding 24 feet in area identifying a multiple residence. The maximum height of the sign should be 6- feet." And then it says ...it gives a definition of a free - standing sign and the area... it says " the area of the smallest rectangle, triangle or circle, whichever results in the smallest area calculation, circumscribing one face of the sign panel or sign symbol, grouped panels or symbols, inclusive of decorative appendages, but exclusive of supports." So I purchased two signs, 24- square feet and put the signs up with two posts on the side and was told that I was out of code. That the. signs would either have to be taken down or made smaller or come before the Board for a variance. I have copies of the code, the code is very vague. I also have a copy of the e-mail from Kristie Rice, I also met with Jon Kanter. on site and Kristie on site and everybody in the Code Enforcement office is... has said that the sign law is very, ,very vague and that they are ... this is Kristie's words.." the policy of this department has long been described to you previously regarding the measurement of signs. " It's their policy, it's not the code. The code is very clear, the code says "exclusive of posts" but their policy means ... includes the posts. Board Member Mitrano — Did you approach any of the Staff for clarification before you made the purchase? Mr. Whitney — I did. I talked to Kristie Rice and her explanation was ... take this, follow this, and you will have no issues. I followed this to the letter and I have issues. I have a copy for everybody if you want to see the code. Board Member Mitrano — Alright. I. recommend that pursuant to the fact that we are going to look into this and recognizing that the code is vague, that we allow this recommendation, allow this motion. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get you closer to the microphone, Board Member Mitrano — I'd like to move this motion. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 11 (Laughter) Board Member Conneman— I have a question. Do you really need two signs? You know once you get the Overlook at West Hill full, it seems to me that you don't need two signs. Mr. Whitney — Well you need two signs because heading north and south on 96, there's no way to position the sign for to see traffic north and south. You have to put one at one entrance and one at the other end so you can see one coming north and one coming south on 96. Because there's trees and a barn and as doctor's office and high growth grass on both sides so we needed one heading... one facing north and one facing south on each parcel. Board Member Hoffmann — I had the same question George when I ... then I went up there and looked at it and I realized that because of the topography and the plants around that it might not be safe to have just one sign placed ... (inaudible) ... to the road... Mr. Whitney — You'd have to place... Board Member Conneman — My question... because I would have looked at it too, is well maybe if you positioned it differently but I didn't... Mr. Whitney — Well there is also the signal poles Board Member Conneman — That's right. That's true. Mr. Whitney — The electric poles there that wouldn't allow us to bring it closer to the road. Board Member Talty — Just clarification... Who's Kristie Rice? Mr. Walker— Senior Code Enforcement Officer. Board Member Talty — It says its' to be illuminated but I didn't see any illumination items in here like what type of bulbs, fixtures... Mr. Whitney — Its' not to be illuminated. No illumination. Board Member Talty — Oh, I'm sorry ... not... I misread it. I'm sorry Chairperson Wilcox — Much better right. Board Member Thayer— It does say exclusive of supports. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 12 Mr. Kanter — It's pretty clear. Mr. Kanter — Except when there considered decorative appendages, that's where the problem comes in. Ms. Balestra — It's very subjective. Board Member Thayer -- We're right back where we were. Mr. Whitney — Anything that you put on the outsides of the ...whether it be wood whether it be brick whether it be anything...wood is not decorative if you ask me, it's a simple 44. 1 didn't put something decorative up. 'I mean... brick or brass or anything. I put a 44 post up and anything more simple than that...I...I don't see it. Board Member Thayer— I agree with him. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions. Can you take a seat so we can give the public a chance. Oh, before you go ... again you realize that you're here for a recommendation ... we'll make a recommendation either positive or negative and then you'll take that and go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Whitney — Yes right. Mr. Whitney — Just one more quick thing. I'm here because... I mean we could have just let it go through but I'm here because I don't want the next guy to have this problem. The problem is we purchased two signs at a total of $8,000 that we were told that we may not be able to use because of the posts. It's not clear in the law ... well it is clear... it says Board Member Mitrano — That's why we've already voted on that. Mr. Whitney -- ,.it says posts but I just want to make sure that the next guy doesn't have to go through this. The signs are within the letter of the law, or within the letter of the code, its' the posts that don't. I just want to make sure that other people don't have to go through the thing that we're going through. Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thanks. Chairperson Wilcox opens the Public Hearing at 7:26 p:m. There being no one, Chairperson Wilcox closes the Public Hearing at 7:27 p.m. Motion made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Kevin Talty. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 13 Board Member Hoffmann— I have a question about the motion. Why does it say 28- square feet in the first whereas, and 30- square feet in the Resolved A? Mr. Kanter — Not to exceed 30... Board Member Hoffmann— Oh, it's for measuring errors. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan. You all set? Ms. Brock— I do not have anything. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't see any scribbles on your copy of the proposed. Board Member Hoffmann— Again, I see that I have a scribble here which. I should have raised when I made the motion. The question is; If a penalty, I mean if an applicant does not obtain a sign permit before installing a sign, what is the penalty, if any? Board Member Thayer— You have to remove the sign. Board Member Hoffmann— Is that stated anywhere? Ms. Brock— the sign law has enforcement provisions in it. So all those provisions would apply to any violations of the law. Board Member Hoffmann— Okay. Well maybe that's something we should look at too. When we look at the sign law. Mr. Kanter — It's all in there. It's basically, what we try and do is work with applicants and get them to conform rather than immediately try to impose penalties which really requires going to court to have a court proceeding to impose the fines. Chairperson Wilcox — That's true with any... if not any, most instances where an applicant has done something which requires a variance and after the fact they can apply for a variance and should the variance not be granted, presumably the offending structure or whatever has to be removed, whether that's a house, a garage or a shed or whatever. Ms. Brock— Or it has to just be brought into performance with the code. The condition that required the variance has to be removed. Chairperson Wilcox — Probably the most notorious case around here was that large house in Manlius built by a lawyer about ten years ago which I Planning Board .September 5, 2006 Final - Page 14 believe ... Skaneatles ...thank you, which was torn down because it was in violation. I believe he might have been a little arrogant about... Board Member Conneman— Cayuga Heights where they made them move the garage. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion. Board votes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 084 Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Sign Variance - Overlook at West Hill, West Hill Circle, Tax Parcel Nos. 24-4 -14.23 and 244- 14.24, Sign Review Board (Planning Board) September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Rod Howe, seconded by Board Member Kevin Talty WHEREAS: 2. This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for sign variances for two identical identification signs, to be installed on opposite sides of the Overlook at West Hill apartment complex entrance, at the intersection of Trumansburg Road and West Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 24 -4 -14.23 and 244-14.24 (each sign located on a separate parcel), Multiple Residence Zone. The signs will each have an area of +/- 28 square feet and a height of +/- 5.8 feet. Overlook at West Hill, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a drawing showing the dimensions of the Overlook at West Hill sign, date stamped August 21, 2006, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for sign variances for two +/ -28 square feet signs, each less than six feet in height, for the Overlook at West Hill development, be approved, subject to the following conditions: a. Each of the proposed sign area, nor six feet Sign Law, and Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 15 signs shall not exceed +/ -30 square feet in total height, as defined in the Town of b. The proposed signs shall not be illuminated, and c. The applicants must obtain sign permits prior to installing signs. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. in total Ithaca Chairperson Wilcox — Representatives of T- Mobile are here I presume ... or,.. is anybody here representing T- Mobile or... (no one is present) ... interesting. I gotta be careful about next because I know the Brainards are not here yet. I'm sorry what? (Audience member states that they are here.) Chairperson Wilcox — Where's Linnette? (Audience members states that she's home) Chairperson Wilcox — Where's Michael ?... No... alright. Unfortunately your Public Hearing is scheduled for 7:45 p.m. so legally I can not open the Public Hearing until then. Board Member Mitrano — Well, can we hear the case? Chairperson Wilcox — We can receive and discuss it. (Board Members agree to do that.) Chairperson Wilcox — The next item this evening is a State Environmental Quality Review Determination for the proposed telecommunication facility located at 756 Dryden Road. Interesting because this is a project that was previously approved... Ms. Balestra — Oh yes. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 16 Chairperson Wilcox -- ...but its just, .. the time limit for beginning construction has elapsed. Ms. Balestra — Right. The Zoning Board... Under the old ordinance, applicants were required to get Site Plan Approval from the Planning board and then Special Approval from the Zoning Board and any variances and they didn't need any variances for this but they required Special Approval. The Special Approval expired. Then the Zoning Ordinance changed, which required applicants to get Site Plan Approval and Special Permits from the Planning Board and just variances from the Zoning Board if necessary. So now the applicant needs Special Permit from the Planning Board. Chairperson Wilcox — Because they did not begin construction in the ... Ms. Balestra — Correct... 18 months. Board Member Talty — But it's really the same proposal... Ms. Balestra — The only change to this proposal is that they want to further minimize aesthetic impact by covering the antennae cables with a cover that matches the tower which is white. Otherwise it is the exact same proposal that both Boards approved three years ago. Board Member Hoffmann -- I was wondering, because I have been looking at that tower over the years, and I recognized right away that the photo that was given to us was an old one where those black cable don't show up. Ms. Balestra — Right. Board Member Hoffmann— And the antennae aren't there either. I took some photos before I came tonight but they are in my camera which I can pass along if anyone needs to see, but maybe you all have seen... and there are... It's not just one cable that you barely see, there are lots of these black cables coming out from this post and then going around the middle I guess, of the water tower itself, and they are very obvious and it wasn't clear to me if this company would cover only their own cables or would they cover the existing cables too? Ms. Balestra — No. They would cover their own. The cables that are existing either belong to Cingular Wireless or Verizon Wireless and actually I visited the site yesterday and noticed that they were not painted to match the tower, neither were any of the antennae and those were both conditions of the Planning Board approval for those proposals as well. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 17 Board Member Hoffmann— I thought that I remembered that we had asked something like that, but I wasn't sure. So can we go back and insist that they do it now if they have not lived up to the ... agreement. Ms. Balestra — Yes. It's something I noticed today and I meant to speak with Susan Brock about it and I hadn't gotten to it yet. I think that...I think that makes them in violation of the site plan approval and I think that we can make them go back and paint them to match the tower like they were supposed to but that's not T- Mobile, that was Cingular and then Verizon. Board Member Hoffmann— It's just, it would make sense if work was going to be done and they need to put up scaffolding and whatever that they coordinate with each other and make it less expensive for each other. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry ... You expect them to coordinate with each other? (laughter) Chairperson Wilcox — They're in competition with each other. Board Member Hoffmann— I expect them to be smart about it. Mr. Kanter — Well actually the coordinator would be Cornell who owns the tower and is leasing these ... the site to these now three different developers. Board Member Hoffmann— I expect Cornell to be smart about it too. Board Member Thayer— Christine is it clear whether these are going to be higher and stick up. higher than the current ones? Ms. Balestra — No, they're going to be at 74 -feet tall and I believe the water tank is 96- feet. Board Member Thayer— Okay, fine. Ms. Balestra — They'll be on the level with... (inaudible) Board Member Thayer— It show a simulation. (inaudible) Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 18 Board Member Conneman— Well the issue is that water towers are not pretty, I mean they never are pretty. We are fortunate to have one there we can hang everything on. It's a great asset. Chairperson Wilcox — I am trying to think ... three of the national providers would be on this tower and then down the road we approved one on a telephone pole. Ms. Balestra — yeah, that was Nextel. Chairperson Wilcox — Was that Nextel? So they are closer to the power plant. In fact there's two allowed near the existing poser plant, both on telephone poles. All co- located. Board Member Talty — There's two things Fred... Like... how bout with the existing that we already passed, seems they're in violation... that's question one... Chairperson Wilcox — Well of the ... of the two other applicants. This Board does not have enforcement power. Enforcement is something we are not able to do and shouldn't do. So we leave enforcement to the Enforcement Officer, The Zoning Enforcement Officer and we leave it to the attorney to provide the appropriate advise. In terms of this applicant, we have pre ... we have a project which we approved once that failed to build within the 18- months that was given by the Zoning Board so now they're back here for the project to be essentially again ... and the only change is one that seems to mitigate environmental impact which is the unsightly cables which run from the equipment on the ground to the antennae up above on the water tower. Board Member Mitrano — So procedurally, can we still call for a Public Hearing now? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. If we're comfortable proceeding without the applicants and /or an agent... Ms. Brock— On the SEQR I read some language one way, I don't know if anybody else did but, in the first whereas it says "the proposal includes attaching nine panel antennas approximately 75 plus or minus feet high on the existing water tank." And that to me when I first read it sounded like the antennas where going to be 75 -feet high, in other words, in length as opposed to 75 -feet above the base of the existing tank. So I thought we could change that language to read ' approximately 75 plus or minus feet above the base of the existing water tank.' Just to clarify that language. I also could not find the size of the panels... I'm sure they're in here, in the drawings but I just didn't see that and it seemed to me we should make sure that the size is listed in the drawings and then the resolution itself won't have to set out the size because the Town, the Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 19 Planning Board would be requiring the panels be constructed as shown in the drawing but I don't know if Christine, maybe you or Dan could just show us where in the drawing the exact dimensions of the panels are shown. Ms. Balestra — On page ... on drawing 3c, it says antennae and coaxil cable schedule, the chart, chart antennae marked Al, it tells you I'm guessing the brand of the antennae and then in parenthesis the dimensions of the antennas. Ms. Brock— Okay. So then that information is in here so you won't need to add anything to your resolutions specifically about size. So then for the SEQR resolution I would just have that one change that I have already mentioned. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you repeat the change again please Susan. Ms. Brock -- Yes. The second paragraph in the first Whereas clause reads "The proposal includes attaching nine antennas approximately 75 plus or minus feet above the base of the existing water tank" and then the sentence continues as shown in your drafted resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — Approximately 75- feet plus or minus above the base of the existing water tank. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion in regard to the environmental review? Board votes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -085 SEQR - Special Permit, T- Mobile Telecommunication Antennas on Water Tank, Dryden Road /Route 366, Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Planning Board, September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS. 1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the existing water tank at the Cornell University McConville Barn, 756 Dryden Road /NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes attaching nine panel antennas approximately 75 +/- feet above the base of the existing water tank, and installing three base transmitter stations on a concrete pad near the base of the tank. This project originally received Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board and Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2003. The Zoning Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 20 Board Special Approval expired in 2005. The Telecommunications Law was updated in 2004 to require Special Permit from the Planning Board rather than Special Approval from the Zoning Board. Therefore, the applicant is required to obtain Special Permit for the project. Cornell University, Owner; T- Mobile, Applicant; Matthew T. Kerwin, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II and Visual Addendum, prepared by the Town Planning staff; plans entitled "Site I.D. Number 3TOS216D, Cornell WT, 756 Dryden Road; Ithaca, NY 14853," including Title Sheet T -1, Site Plan and Detail sheets C -1 through C -5, and Electrical Detail sheets E1 and E2, all prepared by DDS Engineers, revised and date stamped August 25, 2006, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Special Permit; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part 11 and Visual Addendum, 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. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next item on the Agenda at 7:40 p.m. and reads the announcement. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 21 PUBLICE HEARING Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the existing water tank at the McConville Barn of Cornell University, 756 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves installing 9 panel antennas on the walkway handrail of the existing water tank and 3 base transmitter stations on a concrete pad near the base of the tank. This proiect originally received Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board and Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2003. The Zoning Board Special Approval expired in 2005. The Telecommunications Law was updated in 2004 to require Special Permit from the Planning Board, rather than Special Approval from the Zoning Board. The applicant is therefore required to obtain Special Permit from the Planning Board for the project. Cornell University, Owner; T- Mobile, Applicant; Matthew T. Kerwin, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record ... is Mr. Kerwin here? Mr. Kerwin is not here this evening. For the record, is anyone else representing Cornell or T- Mobile in the audience this evening. For the record no one is here representing Cornell, T- Mobile with regard to this applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we still wish to continue? (Board all says yes) Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Bear with me just a second. Discussion? Board Member Hoffmann -- I have another question having to do with the cables being covered or painted... it wasn't clear to me which and that is... in your introduction you say that the antennae cables painted to match the water tank and located along one of the water tank's supports. Does that mean that just the vertical cables would be covered and color matched to the water tower or would the they also go around a circle to hook up to the antennae also be covered and painted. Ms. Balestra — It is my understanding that all of the cable will be covered. Vertical and .. Chairperson Wilcox — Sounds like a condition to me. Just to make sure but I would assume that we want all of cable to be the same color as the tower. Board Member Hoffmann— And it did say that the cabinets would also be painted to match so I would also think that they would do it to all of them, I just wanted to be sure. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 22 Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to modify C Susan? Chairperson Wilcox — Any further disussion? Board Member Hoffmann— And I noticed in the last, in the very last paragraph of this resolution, it's marked C, ii says " in order to minimize potential negative aesthetic impacts the cellular anntenas and equipment cabinets are to be the same color but it doesn't mention the cables so maybe you should add that. Ms. Balestra — Yes, that's a good idea. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me give the public a chance to voice there opinions. Chairperson Wilcox opens the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. There being no one, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? ... discussion? ... Does the Board feel comfortable proceeding to a vote without the applicant or an agent being here? Board states they are. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan you all set with those changes? First whereas.... Ms. Brock— First Whereas make the same change that we made in the SEQR resolution so ... the phrase "approximately 75 plus or minus feet high on th existing water tank" will be revised to read It approximately 75 plus or minus feet above the base of. the existing water tank. Second page paragraph C, add at the end of that paragraph after the words "as indicated on the submitted plans" add the following it comma and all the antennae cable shall be covered with a cover that is painted to match the water tank.' , Chairperson Wilcox - George and Larry ... those changes acceptable. (they agree) Ms. Brock— and then I also have a suggestion to add a new paragraph D, the telecommunications facility shall comply will all requirements of section 270 -219 of the Town Code, except those requirements waived above. And the reason I would like to add that language is that the Telecommunications Facility Provision in the Code has certain requirements such as the facilities not be lit unless the FAA requires it, you shall hang no signs or banners from the facility... things like that and I want to make sure that all these other requirements that are in our code are incorporated into your approval. You did in your resolution, you do Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 23 waive a few of the requirements such as the dimensional standards and so I am excepting those out. . (Someone new enters the room) Chairperson Wilcox — Are you Mr. Kerwin? Unknown — No I am a collegue of Mr. Kerwin's. Forgive my delay but I am here on behalf of T- Mobile. (Laughter and jokes) Chairperson Wilcox — Come on up here please. I won't chastise you any more than we already have. If you would pull the microphone over and just for the record your name and a professional address will work fine. Andrew Leja, Hiscock & Barclay, 300 South State Street, Syracuse, 13210 Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. We have already make SEQR determination. WE have already discussed the application in front of us. We held a Public Hearing, no one spoke, we closed the Public Hearing and we were just discussing some revisions to the resolution as drafted for us. That's where we are so... Susan. Ms. Brock— I was finished with all the changes. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have any questions? Mr. Leja — I have none sir. Chairperson Wilcox — I think that probably the only substantive change that we have made to the resolution is the wording that requires explicitly that all the wires be painted to match. Mr. Leja — Understood. Ms, Brock— Well actually that they be covered and that the cover be matched... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry... that they be covered to match and that's all cables, both the vertical and the horizontal cables. Mr. Leja —Yes, understood. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, I was thinking of the other two. I think that is the only substantive change we've made to the resolution. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 24 Mr. Leja — I would note.that in the language of the draft that .I received it mentioned nine antennas to be located but I think that was picked up from a prior application, its actually only six antennas will be involved here. Ms. Balestra — The original approval was for up to nine. Board Member Hoffmann— We did talk a little bit about the black cables that have been put up by the other applicants and that were supposed to have been painted by them but haven't been and I would like to see coordination between them and you so that that work could be done efficiently and expeditiously and in a smart was .so that there is not a doubling of effort, but I don't know how you do any of this so how that is going to happen, I don't know. But it would be nice to see some cooperation if possible and I have no idea when we can get the other applicants to do what they were supposed4to have done. Mr. Walker— Right now Cornell is benefiting from the leases. We will contact Cornell... Code Enforcement will contact Cornell and tell them they are not in compliance with the Planning Board and the approvals that they previously received and ask them to come into compliance. We will work from there. Chairperson Wilcox — I want to go back to the number of antennas. We have a SEQR motion which says nine... Board Member Thayer— does it say nine or does it say... Ms. Balestra — It says up to... Ms. Brock— No it says nine... Chairperson Wilcox — Everybody pull your SEQR motions... It says attaching nine panel antennas is what it says in the first Whereas. Susan, opinion. I get to do that. Ms. Brock— Well, I think because the actual proposal is for fewer antennas and this Board gave a negative determination of environmental significance to the nine, I don't think that we need to go back and change the SEQR motion. I do think that for the Special Permit Resolution we can fix the motion and say the proposal includes attaching six panel antennas. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. George and Larry the changes ... Board Members Conneman and Thayer state that the changes are fine Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 25 Board Member Hoffmann— Maybe the minutes could reflect that the applicant came in between the time that we voted on the SEQR motion and this one and corrected this and that's why we have corrected it. Chairperson Wilcox — The minutes will reflect that. That's why I wanted you to come up and for the record state that you were here. Susan you're still looking... Ms. Brock— I just want to make sure that the reference to the number nine was only in one spot... and it is. Chairperson Wilcox— Okay. Any further discussion. The Board votes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 - 086 Special Permit, T- Mobile Telecommunication Antennas on Water Tank Dryden Road /Route 366, Tax Parcel No. 65A1 5.2, Planning Board, September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the existing water tank at the Cornell University McConville Barn, 756 Dryden Road /NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes attaching six panel antennas approximately 75 +/- feet above the base of the existing water tank, and installing three base transmitter stations on a concrete pad near the base of the tank. This project originally received Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board and Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2003. The Zoning Board Special Approval expired in 2005. The Telecommunications Law was updated in 2004 to require Special Permit from the Planning Board rather than Special Approval from the Zoning Board. Therefore, the applicant is required to obtain Special Permit for the project. Cornell University, Owner; T- Mobile, Applicant; Matthew T. Kerwin, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Special Permit, has, on September 5, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 26 Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II and Visual Addendum, prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate plans entitled "Site I.D. Number 3TOS216D, Cornell WT, 756 Dryden Road, Ithaca, NY 14853," including Title Sheet T -1, Site Plan and Detail sheets C -1 through C -5, and Electrical Detail sheets E1 and E2, all prepared by DDS Engineers, revised and date stamped August 25, 2006, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board waives the following requirements of Section 270 -219 of the Town Code, relating to Telecommunication Facilities: a. The dimensional standards, indicating the fall zone having a radius equal to the height of attached antennae, pursuant to Subsection F (1), and b. The agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co- locate telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures, pursuant to Subsection M (4). 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit, provided for in the Town of Ithaca Code §270 -219 (Telecommunication Facilities), to allow the proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the existing water tank at the Cornell University McConville Barn, 756 Dryden Road /NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, as shown on the submitted revised plans date stamped August 25, 2006, finding that the standards of §270 -200, Subsections A — L and §270 -219, Subsection C (1 -7) of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. Said Special permit is granted with the following conditions: a. Submission of a financial security bond in the amount of $50,000 for removal of the telecommunications facility and property restoration as required by Town Code Section 270- 2191, in a form acceptable to the Attorney for the Town, b. Submission of a copy of the negotiated lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner (Cornell University), for the location of telecommunication antennas on the water tank, for the approval of the Attorney of the Town, Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 27 c. In order to minimize potential negative aesthetic impacts, the cellular antennas and equipment cabinets are to be the same color as the existing water tank and additional vegetative screening in the form of evergreens shall be planted along the north and west corners of the proposed equipment cabinets, as indicated on the submitted plans, and all antenna cables shall be covered with a cover that is painted to match the water tank, and d. The telecommunications facility shall comply with all requirements of Section 270 -219 of the Town Code, except those requirements waived above. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next Agenda item at 7:45 p.m. SEQR DETERMINATION: BRAINARD 2 -LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 132 PINE TREE ROAD Chairperson Wilcox invites the applicant and /or agents to approach. Chairperson Wilcox — for the record, I worked with Michael's wife Linnette until she had their firstborn child at Claritas, that's why I was hoping to see Linnette come back. Michael, name and address please. Michael Brainard, 132 Pine Tree Road. Mr. Brainard — We are actually proposing splitting one residential parcel into two creating a vacant second parcel to develop a residential building on. To my knowledge... Chairperson Wilcox — The intent is to sell the lot? Mr. Brainard — Possibly. I am considering developing it myself. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review? Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 28 Board Member Hoffmann— When you say develop it into a residential lot, do you mean doing something to the lot other than having the. line put there to create another lot?. Mr. Brainard — Actually that is pretty much what we are looking at today. Is creating a... that separate lot by itself. As far as the reference to developing it, it would be, you know, putting, you know, a family residence. Board Member Hoffmann— A single family residence is what you are talking about. Are you planning on putting in an apartment in that ... Mr. Brainard — No. Board Member Hoffmann — It would just be for one family with no apartment? Mr. Brainard — That's right. Board Member Thayer— I think the table you made, Nicole, was very helpful. Ms. Tedesci — Thank you. That was Jon's idea. I give credit where its due. Board Member Conneman— The map was marvelous. Ms. Tedesci - Oh, the map was me. (laughter) Chairperson Wilcox — While we're on the subject. Two weeks ago, when you were not here at the meeting, we did the South Hill Business Office Campus and there was a chart in there that you made and we found that we didn't know you made it but we found out later and you weren't here, but thank you very much for that one. You can't deflect this one to someone else. Ms. Brock Well I just had a question on the SEQR Part II under Paragraph c4, it says " a second dwelling unit on the current parcel will be permitted under Section 270 -66b of the Town Zoning Code" and I think what that really means is that a second dwelling unit in the current parcel be permitted as part of a two - family dwelling. I just-Wanted to make sure that you understood that, that two separate detached dwellings would not be permitted but a two- family dwelling could be. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Ms. Brock— Okay, I just wanted to make sure that you understood that. And the Planning Board was just having this discussion what would the development Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 29 plans be for the new lot and Applicant's indicated that he's planning on putting a single family without an apartment, but in fact anything that's permitted under the zoning code for a lot in the Zoning District would be allowed. So you can not condition your approval on it being only a single family. Chairperson Wilcox - By right, he could build a two- family dwelling... Ms. Brock- Right... Board Member Hoffmann— I was assuming that he knew that already... Mr. Brainard — Right, but that's not the intention. Board Member Hoffmann... when I asked the question that I asked. Board Member Hoffmann— And the reason I asked it is that I know that Pine Tree Road is a very busy road and it's not going to make a huge difference but if it's a building with two apartments in it and Mr. Brainard is not the owner, someone else could rent it out to students... that sould be many more. Board Member Talty — It doesn't matter though. It's irrelevant. Board Member Hoffmann— Well in some ways ... but l think that it's preferable .. Board Member Talty — Eva, we can't do that... right... right.... Board and staff agree they can not and it's a moot point. Board Member Hoffmann— I suppose it is but in some ways there is some relevance to me, on a street where there is a lot of traffic. Mr. Walker— We could change the zoning. Board Member Hoffmann— right. Chairperson Wilcox — Or Eva, you could decide that the subdivision is inappropriate for that reason, because the existing traffic on Pine Tree Road... Board Member Hoffmann— That's not how I'm thinking... I'm just trying to find out what the plans are. Chairperson Wilcox — Both dimensional requirements... Mr. Walker— They're over size. lots meet the existing ". both lots meet the Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 30 Chairperson Wilcox — Fifteen thousand square feet is what's required.... Chairperson Wilcox — Any other discussion with regard to the environmental review? Board votes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -087 - SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Brainard 2 -Lot Subdivision 132 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel 58 -2 -15, Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Kevin Talty, seconded by Board Member Rod Howe WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 58 -2 -15, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subdivision of the existing +/- 1.12 acre lot into two parcels .of +/ -0.587 acres and +/ -0.533 acres, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map, No, 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 7/25/2006, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part 11 referenced above, in accordance with the New York Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 31 State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — You can stay right there. We've got two of them tonight for you. Because, unlike some of the others that we didn't have to do a SEQR but now we've just done the environmental review. We've made the determination there is no significant environmental impact. So now we'll move onto the Public Hearing. Chairperson Wilcox opens the next agenda item at 8:01 p.m. and reads the Public Hearing announcement. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2-15, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 1.12 acre lot into two parcels with Parcel A being +/- 25,549 square feet (containing the existing house) and Parcel B being +/- 23,220 square feet. C. Michael Brainard & Lynette K. Dean, Owners /Applicants. Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion with regard to the subdivision as proposed. There is none. Michael if you take a seat, we'll give the public a chance to voice their opinions and concerns. Chairperson Wilcox opens the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. and invites the public to speak. There being no one, Chairperson Wilcox closes the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. Mr. Kanter — Fred, do you want to just refer to the e-mail message from Hollis Erb where she did address this... Chairperson Wilcox — Good point. Hollis sent me an e-mail with a statement about this particular subdivision which was provided to each of you when you came in. (Chairperson Wilcox read the e-mail) Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 32 I think that, as I look over at the staff, when and if a building permit is applied for some consideration will be given to the location of the curb cut. Presumably. Staff nods Ms. Brock— And the sewer line. Chairperson Wilcox — And the location of the ... the right of way of the sewer line which goes behind the property line. Mr. Walker— And the curb cut permit has to be issued from the County. Chairperson Wilcox — It is a County road, Pine Tree is a County road, thank you. Susan, changes? Ms. Brock— I have no changes. Board Votes ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -088 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Brainard 2 -Lot Subdivision 132 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel 58 -2 -15, Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 58 -2 -15, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subdivision of the existing +/- 1.12 acre lot into two parcels of +/ -0.587 acres and +1-0.533 acres, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on September 5, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 33 the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map, No. 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 7/25/2006, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 58 -2 -15, Medium Density Residential Zone, as shown on the survey map entitled "Subdivision Map, No. 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 7/25/2006, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, submission to the Town Engineer the deeds for Parcels A and B, both of which must reference the existing Town sanitary sewer easement, and b. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the .Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permit on Parcel B. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 34 Chairperson Wilcox — So Michael your job is to make sure that the appropriate number of copies are here. They have to be signed before you go to the County. Thank you gentlemen. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next Agenda item. SEQR Determination for the proposed Confection Connection located at 823 Danby Road. Chairperson Wilcox — One or all of the Rogan's and /or their agents are welcome to come forward. Unknown — Good evening. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I interrupt you for a minute. We will not be considering the Big AI's /Manley Mart item this evening. We have an Agenda Item coming up at 8:15 p.m. which is ... has to do with the Big AI's now Manly Mart, The Applicant has requested a postponement to a later date. It's not ... we are not exactly sure when but my guess at this time would be the first meeting in October. Notice would go back out, we will re- publish the Public Hearing. I believe that this Board will probably cancel its meeting scheduled for the 19th and as a result that particular application will come back before this Board in the first meeting October, the first Tuesday. That's my guess at this point, we should know better at the end of this meeting when we get to it. So, for Mr. Auble's benefit and sir I am not sure why you're here, but if you are waiting for that... Unknown — I am a new Alternate Board wanted to see how things ran... Member on the Zoning Board and I just Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you for being here. I wanted to get that out of the way. If you will, please start again. Kevin Sullivan, 415 North Albany Street Chairperson Wilcox — If you could give us a brief overview. Mr. Sullivan — Proposing operating a take -out style delivery service out of a existing location at 821 Danby Road, I think it is at 823 on here which is the address of the Plaza, I have found out since then that the actual address is 821 Danby Road. Essentially we are trying to change a storage space, which is currently used as a storage space, into a small bakery which will primarily provide desserts for delivery. Board Member Mitrano — Any thoughts of adding bread to that? Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 35 (Laughter) Chairperson Wilcox — Speaking as a South Hill resident. Board Member Mitrano — A nice loaf of French bread... Mr. Sullivan — I can refer you to a woman who is doing an excellent job in her new bread venture, but myself, give me about 10 years and maybe. Takes very tuned skills to make a good bread. Chairperson Wilcox — This is the facility on the side of the building that has been a used book store, sort of at the end of the year occasionally. Other assorted purposes. Board and audience member determine it is not, it is the other side. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions.... Delivery vehicles will be entering and leaving the site as they do now for pizza delivery? Mr. Sullivan — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — What do you see as your primary delivery area? Mr. Sullivan — Ithaca College, Cornell as well, downtown Ithaca. I don't go much further than that because of the gas. prices. Chairperson Wilcox — And students can get sweets at 10 o'clock at night or 11 o'clock.... What's your idea of how this work out? Mr. Sullivan — Well the theory is that after you've eaten dinner and your in the mood for dessert, if you don't have something around and you don't feel like baking and a lot of the time people don't feel like making a dessert but they have a craving for one, so the idea is that I don't have much competition in this area as there are 20 something pizzerias in the area but nobody provides dessert. Board Member Mitrano — Here here. You will be very successful. Chairperson Wilcox — Will you be baking in the facility? Mr. Sullivan — Yes I will. Board Member Mitrano — Especially if you put in bread. (laughter) Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 36 Chairperson Wilcox -- The facility next to Italian Carry-out is open. Board Member Mitrano — Oh don't worry... I have already spoken to the gentleman about his olive oil selection. (laughter) Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, but there is no bread available there? Board Member Mitrano — The usual selections ... but no fresh made, puffy.... Mr. Sullivan —You ) re the 3`d person who's asked me so there's obviously a market for it. Board Member Mitrano — Why don't you hook up with this woman and have her deliver some there. . Chairperson Wilcox — Do you miss Clever Hans or .... Board Member Mitrano — Very much so. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan..... Ms. Brock— I have a question. Mr. Sullivan's letter say the only exterior construction will be running duct work for the oven head system and mounting a mushroom fan on the rear side of the 18 ... I'm sorry... 16 foot roof. The SEQR resolution says... Except for a new awning over the door, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. And I wasn't sure how this duct work and mushroom fan installation fit in with that. Are the duct work and fan going to be exterior changes? Mr. Sullivan — The mushroom fan will be an exterior change on the rear side of the building where there are already multiple vents running through the roof. Ms. Brock— So I think we need to change the SEQR resolution to say; Except for a new awning over the door and installation of a fan on the rear side of the roof, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. Would that be a correct statement? Mr. Sullivan — That's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy and Rod, those changes acceptable? (yes) Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 37 Board Member Talty - What are your hours going to be? Mr. Sullivan — Hours are planned 11:00 am to 2:00 am seven days a week. may end up closing earlier or opening later depending on how I hold up with that kind of schedule. Board Member Talty — How about minimum order? Mr. Sullivan — Minimum order ... I actually don't have one, we toss on a small delivery charge of a dollar for any order under $101 Chairperson Wilcox — What hours is Rogan's currently open? (Audience member states approximately 7 am to 2 am) Chairperson Wilcox — So you would close at 2:00 the same time the pizza facility ... the convenience store with pizza currently closes. Ms. Brock— We should also change Part II of the EAF ... Section II says no exterior changes are proposed to the building.... Add the text except for a new awning and installation of a new fan on the roof. Board votes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 089 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, The Confection Connection, 823 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 404-2, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "The Confection Connection" to be located in an existing building at 823 Danby Road ( Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former storage space ( +/- 806 sq. ft.) into a dessert delivery service for items such as cookies, brownies and ice cream. Except for a new awning over the door and installation of a fan on the rear side of the roof, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. This would be a modification of the site plan previously approved for the Rogan's Corner development Sullivan, Applicant, and Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 38 James & Julie Rogan, Owners; Kevin 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a letter from the applicant (August 3, 2006), and other application materials, 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 hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter. 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next Agenda item and reads the Public Announcement. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "The Confection Connection" to be located in an existing building at 823 Danby Road ( Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 404-2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former storage space ( +/- 806 sq. ft.) into a dessert delivery service for items such as cookies, brownies and ice cream. Except for a new awning Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 39 over the door, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. James & Julie Rogan, Owners; Kevin Sullivan, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions for the applicant with regard to the Site Plan. Chairperson Wilcox opens the Public Hearing at 8:15 pm. There being no one, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion? Board Member Mitrano — All set. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Thayer — I will. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry. Seconded by the Chair. Susan? Ms. Brock — Make the same changes before in the first whereas clause so that the sentence reads, "except for a new awning over the door, installation of a new fan on the roof, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed." Chairperson Wilcox — Are those changes... Board Member Hoffmann — Oh. I just realized I changed the address, too, to 821 ... from 823 to 821. 1 did that in the SEQR, too, and I forgot to bring it up when we were talking about it. Isn't that appropriate? Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Rogan? Can second? We are going to deal with this brought it up. Thank you for coming up. you are here. you come up and help us out for a address issue because Mr. Sullivan I need a name and address now that James Rogan, 14 Ladoga Park Road, Lansing New York Mr. Rogan - James Rogan, 14 Ladoga Park Road, Lansing New York. Chairperson Wilcox — What is the address of your facility known as Rogan 's Corners? Mr. Rogan — Well, it was originally 823. to 825, but according to Kevin, they have changed ... the Post Office changed it from 821 to 825. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — Is the 821 assigned to particular building in the development? Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final -Page 40 a particular part of the development? A Mr. Rogan — I can't tell you. I think what they did is they took the Laundromat and his building... there are three buildings there. They changed the address on that particular building. The restaurant was 823 and the convenience store was 825: 1 think what the Post Office is when he went down they changed that building to 821. Board Member Mitrano — So that is interesting. The United States Post Office is what controls addresses? Is that how addresses are assigned? Mr. Walker — It is done in conjunction with the Code Enforcement Offices because addresses... house numbers are generally based on the number of numbers you can get in a block. So you may have odd on one side and even on the other is normal and usually you might skip a series. You might have 1, 59 91 if you have wider lots in case a 2- family home is put or something you can get an address in there. This is kind of a weird configuration. Chairperson Wilcox — Lets just step back quickly. One, is there a flaw in the public hearing notice because this says 823? 1 don't think so. It. identifies it as Rogan's Corner. 823 is one of the addresses in the range associated with it. I don't think that we have a problem with the public hearing notice. Susan? Ms. Brock — I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Having said that, then the next question is, what address do we want to reflect in the resolutions? The understanding now is that this particular building will be given the number 821 and that is new information. Previously the three buildings were 823 — 825. Mr. Rogan — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — But also the application says 823. Ms. Brock — I think everything says 823. Mr. Walker — But it also indicates that it is a single tax parcel. properties are on one tax parcel. Mr. Rogan — That is correct. Mr. Walker — That is really the key identifier as far as the site. All these Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 41 Chairperson Wilcox - That's right. The tax parcel is correct in the public hearing notice. Board Member Mitrano — If it were up to me I would just put parens, "according to applicant, address is newly assigned as ", close parens and leave it at that. [laughter] Board Member Mitrano — Because all we have, with all due respect, Mr. Sullivan is just the allegation that it has been changed. We don't know any more. Why don't we just put down what we know in this hearing... Chairperson Wilcox — Don't you love lawyers? This is a technical thing we just go into. We just got to work our way through it, that's all. Mr. Walker — Basically you are going to have four businesses on this site now. Correct? Mr. Rogan — Correct. We had four businesses there at one time. Mr. Walker — One time... but then it was sort of combined into... or one was... Chairperson Wilcox — We had the hair salon there. Mr. Rogan — Tracy's Hair Salon was there. Mr. Walker — Did it have a common address with one of the others? Mr. Rogan — It was the same, 823 -825. Mr. Walker — I think the Post Office is trying to identify individual properties so they can... (not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox - ...individual units. Susan... Mr. Kanter — Let's call it 821 based on the new information we have? Board Member Talty — Yeah, that's fine. Chairperson Wilcox — We gotta go back to the SEQR motion, then. That's the only thing. We have to go back to the SEQR motion. Ms. Brock — Right. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 42 Board Member Mitrano — Call it 825. Ms. Brock — We should revise the SEQR motion before we vote on the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Should we withdraw the motion in front of us? Yes. Ms. Brock —You could just... Mr. Kanter — Table it. Chairperson Wilcox — Table it? Ms. Brock — Lay it on the table and bring it back. Chairperson Wilcox — So we'll table the motion, we'll go back and reconsider the SEQR. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have to... Ms. Brock — You have to vote on tabling the motion.. Mr. Kanter — I don't think you want to say you want to reconsider the SEQR, I think you want to say you want to amend the resolution for the correct address. Ms. Brock — But I think you should vote on tabling the other motion first. Board Member Talty — I make the motion to table... Board Member Mitrano — I second that motion. Ms. Brock — I think Larry already did and Fred already seconded it, right? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we have a motion and a second... have fun with this one. Larry moved the original motion and I seconded it. Who has moved the motion to table it? Kevin has moved that we table the motion and who seconded it? Board Member Mitrano — I seconded it. Chairperson Wilcox — You seconded it. Tracy seconded it. All in favor? Board — Aye. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 43 Chairperson Wilcox — Any opposed? Good. There are no abstentions. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 090 TABLE: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE CONFECTION CONNECTION, 823 DANBY ROAD, PLANNING BOARD MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has Brought Back to the Table Agenda Item Preliminary and Final Site Plan for the Confection Connection at 823 Danby Road. MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Howe. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Board Member Thayer — It would have been easier to withdraw. Chairperson Wilcox — Now we will go back to SEQR... Board Member Conneman — Now, Fred, wait a minute. If you table something, that means you have got to have three - quarters of the people to bring it back. So you always postpone or withdraw, you don't table according to parliamentary rules. Ms. Brock — Well, you've done it. Board Member Conneman — You get yourself in trouble sometimes on that. Seriously. Board Member Mitrano — Good point. Mr. Kanter — Hopefully that won't happen. Board Member Conneman — Its okay because no one is going to ... (not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox — Not what we want to do it... Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 44 Ms. Brock — Move to revise the SEQR resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — Now we will move to revise the SEQR resolution and change the address from 823 to 821. So moved by the Chair. Seconded by Kevin Talty. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 091 AMEND PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -089, SEQR DETERMINATION: THE CONFECTION CONNECTION, 823 DANBY ROAD, PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty. BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board Resolution No. 2006 -089 entitled SEQR Determination: The Confection Connection be revised to reflect the address change of: replace the existing 823 Danby Road with 821 Danby Road as the true postal address as expressed to the Applicant, Kevin Sullivan, by the United States Post Office. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry I brought it up. [laughter] Board Member Conneman — Its appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — Its appropriate. All those in favor of revising the SEQR motion please signal by saying, "aye "? Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — All those opposed? Anybody abstains? So moved. We have now revised the SEQR motion to read 821 Danby Road. All right. Kevin moves to reconsider... Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 45 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 - 092 SEAR — REVISED, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, The Confection Connection, 821 Danby Road, Tax. Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 2. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "The Confection Connection" to be located in an existing building at 821 Danby Road ( Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former storage space ( +/- 806 sq. ft.) into a dessert delivery service for items such as cookies, brownies and ice cream. Except for a new awning over the door and installation of a fan on the rear side of the roof, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. This would be a modification of the site plan previously approved for the Rogan's Corner development. James & Julie Rogan, Owners; Kevin Sullivan, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 4. The Planning Board, on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a letter from the applicant (August 3, 2006), and other application materials, 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 hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 46 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Brock - Well to take off the table... Chairperson Wilcox — To take it off- the table and reconsider the motion for site plan approval. Do we have a second for that? Rod Howe seconds that. All those in favor? Ms. Brock — Wait. Wait. Lets make it clear that in addition to the other change I gave that we are also changing the address from 823 and... Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute. We can't do that yet because we haven't voted to consider it yet. Ms. Brock — Oh, I'm sorry. Chairperson Wilcox — We are voting to bring it back on the table. Ms. Brock —Okay. I'm sorry. Chairperson Wilcox Kevin, you moved the motion and Rod seconded. This is to untable ... to bring it off the table. All those in favor? Board - Aye. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 - 093 BRING BACK TO THE TABLE AGENDA ITEM 7; PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE CONFECTION CONNECTION, 823 DANBY ROAD, PLANNING BOARD MEETING, SEPTEMBERER 5, 2006 BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has Brought Back to the Table Agenda Item Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval: The Confection Connection at 823.Danby Road. MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Mitrano. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: l Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 47 AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? There are no abstentions. Thank you. All right. Now we are back to the motion moved by Larry and seconded by the Chair. Board Member Thayer — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, one change that I am aware of. Ms. Brock — Well, there were two. So we are changing the 823 address to 821 and also saying, "except for the awning over the door and installation of a new fan on the roof'. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Larry, is that change acceptable? Board Member Thayer — Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Its acceptable to me. You wonder why things take so long. Board Member Thayer — Next time we'll just withdraw. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? Nobody, is opposed. There are no abstentions. The motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -094 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, The Confection Connection, 821 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 404-2, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, September 5, 2006 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Chair Person Wilcox. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 48 WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "The Confection Connection" to be located in an existing building at 821 Danby Road ( Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former storage space ( +/- 806 sq. ft.) into a dessert delivery service for items such as cookies, brownies and ice cream. Except for a new awning over the door and installation of a new fan on the roof, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. This would be a modification of the site plan previously approved for the Rogan's Corner development. James & Julie Rogan, Owners; Kevin Sullivan,. Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval has, on September 5, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 5, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a letter provided by the applicant (dated August 3, 2006), a floor plan and key to the equipment, and a map showing the location of proposed space (titled "Boundary Map 8/3/06), and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the.Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "The Confection Connection" located at 821 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, as described in a letter provided by the applicant (dated August 3, 2006), a floor plan and key to the equipment, and a map showing the location of proposed space (titled "Boundary Map ", updated 8/3/06), and other application materials. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 49 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Board Member Mitrano — Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Don't you just want to tell Kevin to keep his mouth shut next time? [laughter] Chairperson Wilcox — I thank you for bringing the address issue to our attention. It's just that the remedy was ... the remedy was ... (not audible)... For the record, the next item this evening is consideration of modification of special permit approval for the Big AI's convenience store, now known as the Manley's Mighty Mart. At the request of the applicant and or their agent, they have requested that we not consider this item this evening as no one will be able to attend to represent the convenience store. Mr. Kanter — That is correct and I did speak with the representative on the phone and told them that we may not get to it until October 3` and that is fine with them and they would be available for October 3rd if that is when we decide to schedule it for. Board Member Conneman — Before we cancel the October 19th meeting, I have lots of things to do beside go to meetings, but the question is, will that be a long discussion that we should have in a separate meeting and are there other issues that this board wants to discuss on the 19th because we end up sometimes crowding the agenda in other meetings when we shuffle things around. It seems to me that there are a couple of things that we could talk about. One is the training that supposedly the State Legislature has said we must do as a Planning Board and the second thing is I keep hearing little items about how the Town Board perceives the Planning Board and whether think there are some items that they should be doing that we do. It seems to me that that is a very serious thing and I don't know what is going on, but you know, I know a lot of people who are saying... is it really true. You don't have to comment, but it seems to me that maybe this is a meeting where we could catch up on a lot of other things. Yes? Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 50 Mr. Kanter — Could I respond to George's:..) think they were questions, weren't they? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Go ahead. Mr. Kanter — Two points. One, the Governor has not yet signed the bill on training. Board Member Conneman — Okay. Mr. Kanter — There is no indication that he won't, but he hasn't yet. Board Member Conneman — I didn't know that. Mr. Kanter — I would say that is premature to discuss it because it may or may not happen, but I'm sure it will, but we can't prejudge that. As to the second point, all I would say is the Town Board is actually trying to schedule a session that would include speakers from the Department of State, which would be regarding the Town Board's role in planning and zoning matters. That ... we are trying to work on scheduling a date. We are having some difficulty in getting a date, but we think it is going to be in November, but I will definitely let you know when we have a definite date, but that's pretty much... it sounds .like the kinds of things they would be discussing at that session. We will certainly invite not only Town Board, but Planning Board and Zoning Board members and municipal officials from all of the other towns and villages throughout the County. In fact, that will probably cosponsored by the County Planning Department as well as the Cortland County Planning Department. So it will be kind of more of a regional... it won't be just the Town of Ithaca issues, it will be a wide range of different subjects, but basically focusing on what the Town Board's roles and responsibilities are in planning and zoning matters. I think that is going to cover a lot of things that you were mentioning. Chairperson Wilcox — Why is the Town Board interested in such a discussion, presentation? Mr. Kanter — For educational purposes. Board Member Conneman — Educational purposes? Very clever. Thank you, Jonathan. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Jonathan. Mr. Kanter — You are welcome. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 51 Board Member Conneman — My basic question is, is this going to be a long discussion with Big AI's or whatever it is called now? Mr. Kanter — Well, I was tonight about it because imposing restrictions on and if we do that, first of to seek advice from the might actually expedite actually discuss it. So th(d going to ask Susan if she wanted to discuss with you there are some questions about case law dealing with hours of operation in conjunction with special permits all, we could do that if you wanted to in closed session Attorney for the Town and secondly, if we did that, it some of the conversation at the meeting where we )t's for your consideration. Otherwise... Chairperson Wilcox — Do I need to do anything official with regard to the scheduled public hearing? Have I sufficiently, for the record, stated that the applicant has requested that it be postponed to a later date? Ms. Brock — I think that is sufficient. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Jonathan, go ahead. Mr. Kanter — We have no other actions scheduled for the September 1 g'h meeting and as of right now, there are very few items confirmed for October 3rd Unless there are any updates that you found today, Mike, in looking through the schedule. Mr. Smith — There was one lot line modification that was on my desk today that probably is not on your sheet yet. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that a lot line modification for the Planning Board or the Director of Engineering? Mr. Smith — It has been submitted as a Planning Board project. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — So other than that, nothing else is even confirmed for October 3rd yet. So we are not going to have a long agenda. Board Member Conneman — I was just asking. Chairperson Wilcox — So the question is, as a reasonable question, do we want to spend some time hearing from the Town Attorney on some of the case law on the issue of hours of operation? Board Member Talty — Now or at a different meeting? Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 52 Chairperson Wilcox — Either now or... if we do it now, then... Board Member Thayer — Then we don't have to do it then. Chairperson Wilcox - ...we don't have to do it then. It is up to this board. If we do it now we may revisit it in 4 weeks anyways. I mean we all have seen the memo that Susan wrote. Board Member Talty — I don't believe I saw it. Ms. Brock — I sent it to Fred and Jonathan. Mr. Kanter — We did not copy it or forward it to other board members. Board Member Hoffmann — But we got something by email recently. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, we did. Mr. Kanter — You did get an email from me saying that the applicant had request postponement. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me... Board Member Hoffmann — That was here tonight on the table. There was an email, too, from you Susan, that was about something else. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me we make better decisions when we have some time to think about it rather than... Board Member Howe — Is it pretty straight forward, what the case law has to say? Ms. Brock — I think we should probably discuss this in closed session. Board Member Howe — I'm willing... Board Member Hoffmann — I'm willing to do it now. It is early and it would be better probably to cancel a meeting than to have a meeting for something we could do now. Board Member Howe — Is it something we can do in like half an hour? Ms. Brock — Yes. Mr. Kanter — Or less. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 53 Ms. Brock — It will just be closed session to seek advise of counsel. So you can control how long that goes. Board Member Talty — So why don't we do that right now. Chairperson Wilcox — As Chair, I move that this board go into Executive Session... Ms. Brock — Closed session. Chairperson Wilcox — That we move into closed session for the purpose of receiving advise of our counsel. I need a second. Board Member Conneman — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. All those in favor? Tracy's not here. All those in favor please signal by saying aye? Chairperson Wilcox, Board Member Hoffmann, Board Member Conneman, Board Member Thayer, Board Member Howe, Board Member Talty — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. There are no abstentions. Susan? The Planning Board entered into closed session. Upon motion by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty, the board returned to regular. session. ADOPTED. RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 095 ENTER CLOSED SESSION TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING LIMITING HOURS OF OPERATION, PLANNING BOARD, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca enter into closed session at 8:20 p.m. to receive legal advice regarding limiting hours of operations of a business. MOTION made by Chair Person Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Conneman. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 54 Motion carried unanimously. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 096 RETURN TO REGULAR SESSION, PLANNING BOARD, SEPTEMBERS, 2006 MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty. BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board return to regular session at 8:45 p.m. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None Motion carried unanimously. Board Member Talty — I will not be here for the October meeting Chicago. Board Member Thayer — The first one? Board Member Talty — The first one. MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2006 I will bein ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -097, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 15, 2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the August 15, 2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Mitrano and Howe NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. Planning Board September 5, 2006 Final - Page 55 The motion was carried. OTHER BUSINESS The board considered cancellation of the September 19th Planning meeting. Board Member Thayer moved to cancel the meeting and Member Talty seconded. Board cancelled September 19th Planning Meeting. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 — 098 CANCELATION OF THE SCHEDULED SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 PLANNING BOARD MEETING BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board cancel its Regular Meeting scheduled for September 19, 2006. MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe and Talty NAYS: None ABSENT: None Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion, Chairperson Wilcox Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk adjourns the meeting at 8:55 p.m TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, Septtember 5, 2006 AGENDA I. 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than. -five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed replacement sign for the St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -10, . Medium Density.Residential Zone. The proposal includes replacing the existing 24 . square foot, six -foot tall sign with a new +/- 32 square foot, seven -foot tall sign for the church. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner; Patricia Cote, Applicant., 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of . Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed installation of one sign on each parcel for The Overlook at West Hill complex, located at the intersection on Trumansburg Road and West Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -4 -14.23 and 24 -4- 14.24, Multiple Residence: The proposal includes installing two +/- 28 square foot signs at the entrance from Trumansburg Road. Overlook at West Hill LP, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Agent. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Telecommunication Facility, 756 Dryden Road. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration'of Special Permit for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the existing water tank at the McConville Barn of Cornell University, 756 Dryden Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 65- 1 -5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves installing 9 panel antennas on the walkway handrail of the existing water tank and 3 base transmitter stations on a concrete pad near the base of the tank. This project originally received Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board and Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2003. The Zoning Board Special Approval expired in 2005. The Telecommunications Law was updated in 2004 to require Special Permit from the Planning Board, rather than Special Approval from the Zoning Board. The applicant is therefore required to obtain Special Permit from the Planning Board for the project. Cornell University, Owner; T- Mobile, Applicant; Matthew T. Kerwin, Agent, 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Brainard 2 -Lot Subdivision, 132 Pine Tree Road. 7 :45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -15, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 1.12 acre lot into two parcels with Parcel A being +/- 25,549 square feet (containing the existing house) and Parcel B being +/- 23,220 square feet. C. Michael Brainard & Lynette K. Dean, Owners /Applicants. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: The Confection Connection, 823 .Danby Road. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "The Confection Connection" to be located in an existing building at 823 Danby Road (Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former storage space ( +/- 806 sq. ft.) into a dessert deliveryy service for items such as cookies, brownies and. ice cream. Except for a new awning over the door, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. James & Julie Rogan, Owners; Kevin Sullivan, Applicant. . 8:15 P.M 8:15 P.M. 12, 13, 14, 15, SEQR Determination: Manley's Mighty -Mart, 1103 Danby Road. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration to modify a Special Permit Approval for the Big Al's Convenience Store (Manley's Mighty -Mart) located at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 2 -2.2, Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone. The proposal involves modifying the previously granted approval to allow the store to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. A Special Approval was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the convenience store on January 14, 1998, which restricted the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday, and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. Pursuant to the current Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -138, convenience stores with gasoline sales are now regulated.by Special Permit from the Planning Board, Manley's Mighty -Mart, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Dwight R. Ball, Esq., Agent. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). Approval of Minutes: August 15, 2006. Other Business: Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, September 5, 2006 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, September 5, 2006; .at 215 North Tioga Street,. Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed replacement sign for the St. Catherine of Siena Church, 302 St. Catherine Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -I -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes replacing the existing 24 square foot, six -foot tall sign with a new +/- 32 square foot, seven -foot tall sign for the church. St. Catherine of Siena Church, Owner; Patricia Cote, Applicant, 7:15 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed installation of one sign on each parcel for The Overlook at West Hill complex, located at the intersection on Trumansburg Road and West Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -4 -14.23 and 24 -4- 14.24, Multiple Residence. The proposal includes installing two +/- 28 square foot signs at the entrance from Trumansburg Road. Overlook at West Hill LP, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Special Permit for the proposed wireless telecommunication facility on the existing water tank at the McConville .Barn of Cornell University, 756 Dryden Road, . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves installing 9 panel antennas on.the walkway handrail of the existing water tank and 3 base transmitter stations on a concrete pad near the base of the tank.. This project originally received Site Plan Approval from the Planning Board and Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2003. The Zoning Board Special Approval expired in 2005. The Telecommunications Law was updated in 2004 to require Special Permit from the Planning Board, rather than Special Approval from the Zoning Board. The applicant is therefore required to obtain Special Permit from the Planning Board for the project. Cornell University, Owner; T- Mobile, Applicant; Matthew T. Kerwin, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary. and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 132 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2 -15, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 1.12 acre lot into two parcels with Parcel A being +/- 25,549 square feet (containing the existing house) and Parcel B being +/- 23,220 .square feet. C. Michael Brainard & Lynette K. . Dean, Owners /Applicants. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed "The Confection Connection" to be located in an existing building at 8.23 Danby Road (Rogan's Corner), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2, Neighborhood Commercial. Zone. The proposal involves converting the former storage space ( +/- 806 sq. ft.) into a dessert delivery service for items such as cookies, brownies and ice cream. Except for a new awning over the door, there are no exterior changes to the site or building proposed. James & Julie Rogan, Owners; Kevin Sullivan, Applicant. 8:15 P.M. Consideration to modify a Special Permit Approval for the Big Al's Convenience Store ( Manley's Mighty -Mart) located at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca.Tax Parcel No. 43- 2 -2.2, Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone. The proposal involves modifying the previously granted approval to allow the store to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. A Special Approval was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the convenience store on January 14; 1998, which restricted the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday, and 6:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday through Thursday. Pursuant to the current Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -138, convenience stores with gasoline sales are now regulated by Special Permit from the Planning Board. Manley's Mighty -Mart, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Dwight R. Ball, Esq., Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs; will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, August 28, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 I'�•s*v _ I IF HE ITHAGA {JOURNAL,= !_ >" T Kerwm �Agentt qR 7:45 P.MrCon3iderati 'X�$ TOWN.OF,ITHACA ' PLANNING BOARDA �� PUBLIG�HEARIN65�� �S�Tu "esdayy;rzJ t ?Sep mbera5200bT it j$y dection of theCh ir ja cuuo aT =caa rvoTmtia It- Ti Stieeflthaca N Y fat e Gllowing liroesand,on the followmg�matters��` £��;� ' 7 05 P MTConsider6twn of a Recommendation to the Z*- It Board,of Appeals iegardingezR;sign,�vari S ' for the , roposed;IIrepplace ment sign fot,the St Cattier 4. Qwner, Pdtncia Cote;V A' +phcant4�= "7 15 P MNConsiderahon ' k'Cif a Recogimendat5omfo the kZonmgBoardof Appeals" k r jar mg `;signs vandncesi for the proposed installati ons. of one siggnlon achparcela �'for;�The,Overlook�at West Hdl complex, locatedEgt th"e,, .` , lwo +X*28 tsquare'foota`: { s5gns�at itbe +entrance,,from %� Trumansbur "g�Road MOveiz look`�at West Hill LP, Ctwn -"� feT;Stacey�Whitney Agent�yr 7, 30 P M Consideration =jt. of�SpeaalPermd fortfief hIF 36W Dryden `aT yRoad,Town of IthacTax: tit ,P;arcel�No:`�?°65y15'2WLow ash Density Residential +Zone of F Thse prolecl involves instal Ci ling 9 panel =antennds one Mi the walkw'aywhandr'oil of theE fM exishngwiter'ia'nk.:dnd 3q ba 44 se transmitter stations ion r E: az kiconciet pad nearthep _: base of the'tankTf is' pros q �ed ongtrial receivedrSSte� .. -at Plon� „Appar'olval=_�from�.�the`- ` PI Planning Board and S`ppecwl. Hsu Approval From zthe sZomng�� =ol Board of- Appeals m`2003 m The Zoning Board ;Specwl €, sW APProval expiredFin 2005 ?; wi ;TheTelec`ommonicahons,: in Law wasupdated mq 20041 3to -r uireu'Sp cial - P.ermii wi FIt from�e??Planning �ryBoa�d, ryry �ratheri tfian�Spec�al�;`Appro; di oval from;f{ie Zoning =Boards m �5fhe--Zlo pplicaniz 5tfe'refore jle srequire[t'to obtamSPecial= th Permit; from the fit tBoard`for4the protect; Cor `, W IF nettUnive�sity �OwrerT Y �D °P t y,u TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 7:00 P.M. PLEASE SIGN IN NAME. ADDRESS. 13') o i Nc : -- K; �c X�v a i r, ` `1 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: August 28, 2006 August 30, 2006 (:39c e Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30`h day of August 2006. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 OHO