HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-11-07FILE � 1
DATE c�v
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 7,
2006, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva
Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board
Board Member.
Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Member; Larry Thayer, Board Members Kevin Talty,
STAFF
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan
Brock, Attorney for the Town; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk.
EXCUSED
Rod Howe, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith,
Environmental Planner.
OTHERS
Greg Halkiopoulos, 155 Westview Lane; Stacey Whitney, 200 Overlook Drive; Ann and
Andy Byrne, 137 Hopkins Road; Don Crittenden, 173 Bundy Road; Grace Chiang, HOLT
Architects; David Brewster, HOLT Architects; Rosalind and Salvador Grippi, 9 Orchard
Hill Road, Melanie Stein, 306 Sunnyview Lane.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepts for the
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in
Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 30, 2006 and November 1, 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 November 1, 20066
Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox 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.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
SEQR .
Halkiopoulos 2 -Lot Subdivision, 155 and 155.5 Westview Lane
Chairperson Wilcox — Name and address, please, sir.
Greg Halkiopoulos, 155 Westview Lane
My name is Greg Halkiopoulos and I live on 155 Westview Lane.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you prepared to make a short presentation or should we just
go right into the questions?
Mr. Halkiopoulos — Go right into the questions. I sent you a very short letter and I have
my three points, the reason whey we want to do something like that.
Chairperson Wilcox — We all have the letter. First thing we will do is the environmental
review and should we make a determination that there is no significant environmental
impact, then we move on to actual consideration of the subdivision. We will give the
public a chance to speak and then we will make a vote. Questions with regard to the
environmental review?
Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved.
Board Member Conneman — Second.
Chairperson Wilcox — We all set down here?
Mr. Kanter — I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox — I. have a motion and a second. All those in favor please signal by
saying aye.
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed?
motion is passed.
Any abstentions? There are none.
Westview Lane, Tax Pace/ No, 58 -1 -39.54
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
The
O►:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and
modification of the original 1986 Grandview Subdivision approval for the
proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 155 & 155.5 Westview Lane, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No 58 -2- 39.54, Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves subdividing the +/- 19,795 square foot property into two lots
where each unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot. This proposal
will also require a modification of the original 1986 Grandview Subdivision
approval that restricted this lot (Lot No. 36) to a single owner duplex. Matoula &
Greg Halkiopoulos, Owners /Applicants, 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 November 7, 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
"Map of Survey Lot No. 36, Grandview Subdivision, " prepared by Robert S.
Russler Jr., most recently revised September 27, 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 RESOL VED:
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 II referenced above, 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, Talty.
NA YS: None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
3
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and modification
of the original 1986 Grandview Subdivision approval for the proposed 2 -lot
subdivision located at 155 & 155.5 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 58 -2- 39.54, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves subdividing the +/- 19,795 square foot property into two lots where
each unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot, This proposal
will also require a modification of the original 1986 Grandview Subdivision
approval which restricted this lot (Lot No. 36) to a single owner duplex.
Matoula & Greg Halkiopoulos, Owners /Applicants
Chairperson Wilcox reads the public hearing notice.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the proposed subdivision? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, my main question is, I wish somebody could tell me
what the reason was for having a duplex like this other than what was in the papers
that it seemed to fit in better with the neighboring properties that are single family
houses, bigger lots. Why this one and the one next to it are duplex buildings, but on
one lot, I can't figure out what the reason is for that really.
Chairperson Wilcox — Weren't you here back then? On this board?
Board Member Hoffmann — I wasn't on this board back then. Has staff tried to contact
the people who were on the board at the time?
Mr. Kanter — No. That would be a hopeless effort, I think. The minutes are the record
and there really was not very much in the minutes of that meeting where this was
approved.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have the letter from Floyd Forman, which essentially says the
frontage on these two lots is significantly less than the frontage on the other lots. The
frontage on the clustered lots, if you will, the ones that had the duplexes where each
duplex was owned individually had 120 feet of frontage. Therefore each duplex had
roughly 60 feet of frontage. The single - family homes had 100 feet of frontage. This
particular lot has 70 feet of frontage total. So I you put a duplex, they each would
have roughly 35 feet as opposed to 60. So that is one reason given. The other reason
given was that it was considered a transitional zone between the duplexes and the
single - family homes, between the clustered units and the other clustered units. That is
what we have from Floyd Forman's letter. The house is acting ... seems to be...the use
right now seems to be one that mimics the other duplexes. It has two units. Its got
two driveways, but what it doesn't have is the firewall, which has to be there in order to
sell the units individual. Sir, go ahead.
n
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Mr. Halkiopoulos — I would just like to help the situation here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead.
Mr. Halkiopoulos — I spoke to Mr. Ivar Jonson, the developer, and I said to him can you
explain to me why those two houses are not on separate tax parcels, just like 99
percent of the other houses. He says, "I built this house 20 years ago, about. I still
cannot understand why." That's fine. Second he says, "not only I can't understand
why is because we have similar houses in other corner lots of the same development
and they are on separate tax parcels." I asked him about the firewall. He was very
upset about it. He says we have the same issue time in and time out every time we
have to talk about a development and he says the Town of Ithaca has everything in file
for every single house in the development and all the houses in the development have
the identical firewall. And to date, he says, I cannot understand these two houses were
exempt or different. But it is true. I asked two contractors. They came. They looked
at the wall. They went actually and put people in the crawl space above the ceiling and
they looked at the wall and there is a double cement block. I don't know about
technical details, but they can see. One of them actually said why did you call us here
and I said well, I wanted to make sure that I have what is required and he said of
course you do.
Chairperson Wilcox — Did I miss something there? Do you believe that you have the
appropriate New York State Code firewall between your duplex and the other one?
Mr. Halkiopoulos — Yes, because this house is ... the firewall in this house is identical to
every single house in that development.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Mr. Kanter — I would just mention that that will have to be determined by our code
enforcement officials when a building permit ... well, prior to, 'what we are recommending
anyway, prior to the signing and filing of the subdivision plat, if the board chooses to
approve it, would be providing the documentation to our building code officers that
there is an adequate firewall and they will know how to handle that. I don't. I'm not a
code person, but if it is easy to demonstrate that, if it requires them going out and
inspecting it and making their determination, that's fine.
Chairperson Wilcox — Or a licensed architect or engineer provide documentation that it
exists. The draft resolution that was provided to us has a stipulation that your structure
has that firewall there before the subdivision can occur. If you can provide suitable
evidence to the Town that it exists, then you will have fulfilled that draft condition. It
has to be built in order to meet code, then obviously you know what you have to do.
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Mr. Halkiopoulos — Its very logical.
Board Member Mitrano — So essentially is a firewall, just in this situation where it has
two separate walls rather than one adjoining wall?
Chairperson Wilcox — Since I am not up on New York State code, I assume that it has
to have mortar or brick or cinder block...
Board Member Thayer — ...in between...
Mr. Walker — Generally. for a party wall, you can have...(not audible), ,between
occupancies, but that can be double sheet rock, but to be between two party walls, its
got to be fireproof materials, all the way through the roof I believe.
Chairperson Wilcox — So this would be true of any condominium or townhouse where
you have separate ownership. The issue here is separate ownership.
Mr. Walker — So basically even though the houses are built together, they could stand
separately.
Board Member Mitrano — Interesting. Thank you.
Board Member Hoffmann — So it only applies where there are two separate owners, .
different owners for each unit, if there is one owner of both and one is rented out and
the owner lives in the other then a firewall is not needed?
Mr. Walker.— You still have to have fire separation between the occupancies, but it is a
lower level of fire protection.
Mr. Kanter — But in this case, I think the follow up to that is if you approve the
subdivision, you are creating the circumstance where they could be owned by separate
owners and whether they are or not is irrelevant because that triggers the code
requirement for the party wall.
Board Member Hoffmann — The question didn't really relate directly to this case, but I
was just wondering in general because we have a lot of houses in Ithaca where the
owner has an apartment in addition to the unit the owner lives in.
Mr. Walker — The owner has control over the whole structure. So the owner ... if there's
two owners, one of the owners could have removed some safety features or built an
unsafe situation and the other owner would not have no control over it. If it is a single
owner, then that owner has control over the whole property.
on
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Mitrano — I know this is ... (not audible)... but I grew up in a little. duplex
that was top and bottom. When you do it that way between downstairs and upstairs,
I'm sure there was no cement because I used to hear the kids roller skating up there,
but that is just like a whole different kind of code situation. It was a double house.
Chairperson Wilcox — As separate ownership?
Board Member Mitrano — No.. My parents owned the whole house. So that is what you
were just talking about.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? This is a public hearing.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. and invites members of the
public to address the board.
Melanie Stein, 306 Sunnyview Lane
Melanie Stein, 306 Sunnyview Lane, also built by Ivar Jonson, part of the same
development. I just wanted to answer what Ms. Hoffmann said. Westview is shaped a
little bit like a horseshoe, a little bit like a teardrop. So it comes back and catches its
own tail and its own mouth. At the top part of the horseshoe if you will, there are
single - family .houses and opposite that are duplexes and then in the corner are, right at
Matoula's and then a house that I just inherited right next to them. The rest of
Westview is all duplexes. So the nature of the neighborhood is a combination of single -
family homes and duplexes. On Sunnyview, on one side of the street it is single family
and the on other side is duplexes. So I just wanted to correct a possible misperception
that ... in the neighborhood we are used to there being lots of duplexes and that's okay.
I was just wondering because if they are successful, then I am going to try to do the
same thing for 153 and I am wondering about... Okay. Their driveway is different from
mine. Is a driveway a potential problem?
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me answer your question this way. What we do or don't do
with this request, has no bearing on we may or may not do if your request should come
in. We will handle yours separately and independently. I am looking at the subdivision
map right here. If you've got the corner lot right next them. You have even less
frontage. It is hard to read, but I am going to guess there is about 45 or 46 feet of
frontage for your lot and your duplex versus the 70 feet that the current applicant has
and I don't have any idea how the house is configured on the lot and, where the
driveways are. So...
Ms. Stein — The only difference is the driveway.
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — So should you decide to proceed, similar to the way that the
Halkiopoulos's have, then we will review your application separately from the current
applicant.
Ms. Stein — So who would I talk to about the driveway because that is the big
difference?
Chairperson Wilcox — I want to say call town hall and get a hold of Jonathan Kanter.
Mr. Kanter — I think that also we can address that partly now, but if there is a single
driveway that currently is in effect a common driveway, is that right?
Ms. Stein — It's a y. It starts out common and then splits.
Mr. Kanter - Probably in addition to what we would be requiring for this subdivision, if
again the board chooses to approve it, we would also require an easement and
common driveway agreement for shared use of that single point of access.
Ms. Stein — So I can call you and you can explain what that means. I. think is just
decoration. It doesn't seem to be doing anything.
Chairperson Wilcox — If you are close enough, it does amplify and we are recording
YOUR
Ms. Stein — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else like to address the board this evening?
There being no one, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Board Member Hoffmann — Now these two lots, 35 and 36 are the only ones that had
this particular situation, right? In the whole development?
Chairperson Wilcox — According to the notes on the final plat, yes. Note 11 indicates
that they are the only two that have that restriction. For the record, I got an email
from Hollis Erb, which has been shared with each of you. I'll just read it.
"I do not think the reasons for the restriction remain compelling and would favor
granting the request to delete the restriction, i.e., I would grant an application to allow
separate owners of the two units of the duplex. I also favor any fire protection
improvements between the two units of the building that the board might want to
require. I do not that 'the character of the neighborhood' is adversely affected in any
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
way. (This is a building that I see several times a week because it is two buildings
away from the duplex in which my best friend lives )"
Chairperson Wilcox — I would add to that that it doesn't change the usage, the existing
usage of the structure.
Board Member Hoffmann — Since it is very clear from the papers that there can be no
apartments in any of these units, its not going to change, either, with two separate
owners.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Would someone like to move the motion as
drafted?
Board Member Mitrano Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved. Seconded by Kevin Talty. You are moving to grant?
Board Member Mitrano — Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — There is a choice.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Motion by Tracy, seconded by Kevin Talty to grant the
subdivision. Any further discussion?
Ms. Brock — I have a proposed change on paragraph 3d. Change that language to
read, "submission of draft restrictive covenants declaring that... ". Let me start over
again. Submission of draft restrictive covenants for approval of the Attorney of the
Town, which covenants shall declare that no more than one dwelling unit may exist on
each lot, prior to filing of the final subdivision plat, and filing of approved restrictive
covenants... I'm sorry, just filing of approved restrictive covenants. I'm sorry. I need to
rewrite this. This isn't exactly right. Give me a minute.
Chairperson Wilcox — Take your time. There's no baseball game tonight. No World
Series tonight. Election coverage begins at 9 on the radio.
Board Member Thayer — We should be all set.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, we should. Take your time, Susan. .
Ms. Brock takes a few moments to draft language.
Ms. Brock — Okay. I have it now. Lets try it again. 3d. Submission for approval of the
Attorney for the Town of draft restrictive covenants for each of the two lots (155 and
M
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
155.5 Westview Lane) declaring that no more than one dwelling unit may exist on each
lot, and filing of said restrictive covenant upon approval of the Attorney for the Town.
Chairperson Wilcox — Change acceptable Tracy and Kevin?
Board Member Mitrano — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal
by saying aye.
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. There are no abstentions.
The motion is passed. The next step is up to you. Thank you very much. They are off
to the Zoning Board.
Ps RESOLUTION NO. 2006 409: Preliminary and Final Subdivision,
A_vvrova //Modirication, Haj oaoulos 2 4ot Subdivision, 155 & 155.5
Westview Lane, Tax Parcel No. 58 -1 -39.54
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded Board Member Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and
modification of the original 1986 Grandview Subdivision approval for the
proposed 2 -16t subdivision located at 155 & 155.5 Westview Lane, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel. No. 58 -2- 39.541 Medium Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves subdividing the +/- 19,795 square foot property into two lots
where each unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot. This proposal
Will also require a modification of the original 1986 Grandview Subdivision
approval that restricted Lot No. 36 to a single owner duplex (Note #11 on
approved Subdivision plat). Matoula & Greg Halkiopoulos, Owners /Applicants,
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 November 7, 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
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
3. The Planning Board, on November 7, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Shoe` Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled
"Map of Survey Lot No. 36, Grandview Subdivision, " prepared by Robert S.
Russ/er Jr., most recently revised September 27, 2006, and other application
materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED;
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 the requested modification of the 1986
Grandview Subdivision to eliminate the condition that Lot No. 36 (Tax Parcel No
58 -1- 39.54) be restricted to a single-owner duplex, and,
3. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed 246t subdivision located at 155 and 155.5 Westview
Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2- 39.54, as shown on the survey map
entitled "Map of Survey Lot No. 36, Grandview Subdivision, it prepared by Robert
S. Russler Jr., most recently revised September 27, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
a. receipt of a building permit and certificate of occupancy for the installation
of a party wall to separate the two units in conformance with the NYS
Uniform Fire Prevention & Building Code, prior to signing of the
subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chairman,
b, granting of any necessary variances by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman,
c, submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of a mylar
and three dark -lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with
the Tompkins County Clerks Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to
the Town of Ithaca Planning Department..
d, submission for approval of the Attorney for the Town of draft restrictive
covenants for each of the two lots (155 and 155.5 Westview Lane)
declaring that no more than one dwelling unit may exist on each lot, and
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
filing of said restrictive covenants for approval of the Attorney .for the
Town, and
e. all other restrictions and conditions contained in the Planning Boards
resolution of approval of March 4, 1986, and on the approved final plat for
the Grandview Subdivision, shall remain in effect and shall apply to the
new lots created at 155 and 155.5 Westview Lane.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty.
NA YS None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
SEQR
Overlook at West Hill Light Fixtures, West Hill Circle
Grace Chiang, HOLT Architects
Grace Chiang, HOLT Architects, 217 North Aurora Street.
David Brewster, HOLT Architects
David Brewster with HOLT Architects at the same address.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Are you going to make a statement?
Ms. Chiang — Sure, a very brief one, I think. Basically we are back here because we
made a change in the light fixtures that are mounted on the buildings. I think in your
packet you have two light fixtures, actually, that were approved as part of the site plan
review. One was a pole fixture, which we did install, and the other was a smaller
fixture that we had talked about possibly installing on the building. At that time, we
were thinking that those lights would also provide general lamination on the site. As
the design progressed, what happened is that we found that the pole fixtures provided
sufficient light for the site so instead of using building mounted fixtures to further
enhance the lighting on the site, we just put some decorative fixtures actually at each
of the doors. The other issue is, is that the fixture that we had originally planned to
use was discontinued, but I'm not sure we would have used that fixture anyways
because it had a much higher Lumen output, which we talk about in the letter. The
fixture we had originally proposed was a 70 -watt metal halog, which puts out about
4,000 lumens. The fixture that we actually ended up installing was a 60-watt
incandescent that puts out something more like 800 lumens, so significantly less.
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
The other issue that was pointed out to us is that it doesn't have night sky
shielding. However, the location where we ended up mounting the fixture and I don't
know if you guys all got these pictures that we actually...
Chairperson Wilcox — We have lots of ... we have pictures and ... yes, we have.pictures.
Ms. Chiang — So the fixtures are all installed in locations that are under either very deep
overhangs or under porches so that there actually is no light sky issue in terms of being
able to go up to the sky because there is always something at least ... the ones that are
up here have about an 18 -20 inch overhang. Then the other ones are way deep
behind, in behind the decks or the porches. So what we would like to do is to ask you
to allow us to keep these fixtures that we have now installed. Jonathan asked us if we
would be ... the one area where there is not this night sky shielding is at the community
center where. we have the same fixtures installed. We are proposing to replace those
four fixtures there with this fixture. Did you get this? We have more copies if you don't
have this.
Mr. Kanter — I don't think we distributed that because we were still in the process.
Ms. Chiang Can we pass these out?
Mr. Kanter — Yeah, please.
Ms. Chiang — So this is a totally shielded fixture. It has a 13 -watt florescent in it, which
puts out about 1200 lumens so it is a little bit more than the incandescent. You can see
the light is up inside the can.
Board Member Talty — How many lumens was the original?
Ms. Chiang — 410000
Board Member Talty — And how much is this?
Ms. Chiang — 1200. I guess unless there is anything else somebody would like me to
address ... so what we are asking is that you allow us to keep the fixtures that have been
installed on the 8 buildings that you see in the pictures and that we would swap out the
four that are not so shielded that are on the community center.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Comments? Criticism? Whatever.
Board Member Talty — How did we get away from the plan? We approved the plan,
which I voted against. I want to go on record as saying that. How do these things
happen?
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Ms. Chiang — Well, the owner wanted to have a different fixture. We didn't need a
fixture that as I said, was going to provide general lighting so we didn't want to provide
a fixture that had such high lumen output because actually I think would be not very
pleasant. These fixtures, by the way, are on switches. They don't come on
automatically. So if you go out there any given night, they are not, certainly by any
means all on. I did go up a couple of times myself to check that out. So the fixtures
we had originally proposed were actually fixtures that would have come on with a
photocell like the pole lights do. So it really is almost a different kind of use, but
Jonathan went up to take a look at it to make sure we were in compliance. These are
the only building mounted. fixtures we have now so that is how we got here..
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think you answered the question. Who decided that they
could simply ignore the resolution and do something different?
Ms. Chiang — To be honest, this was not something that was done maliciously. I think
it was something that slipped through the cracks on our part, between us and. the
owner. The owner, in the end, not only with these fixtures and I know you don't care
about the interior fixtures, but wanted to play a strong role in selecting the fixtures and
I honestly forgot that we had the particular fixture selected that when we did go back
to look at it, it turned out it was discontinued so we went ahead and put these in. We
should have come to you before we did...
Chairperson Wilcox — Did you forget that the new ones weren't shielded? I
mean ... yeah.
Ms. Chiang — Yeah ... I mean honestly I didn't remember that we had this fixture in the
package. We had the pole fixtures and those were shielded and that is what my focus
was on. I mean I'm being perfectly honest. It really slipped through the cracks and I
feel badly about that.
Board Member Hoffmann — But you have been before us other times and you know that
in all recent developments we have asked for shielded lights, so it is nothing new with
this development. So you have heard it before when you have been before us.
Ms. Chiang — Yes. Yes, we have.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm a little bit concerned. You talk only about the night sky
illumination as being a problem and whenever I think about lights that of course is a
concern but the primary concern is that the residents and visitors and people driving by
not be blinded by lights that are not properly shielded. You explain now that you have
fixtures that have ... light bulbs that give less lumens, but what is there to prevent the
residents from changing the bulbs if they want stronger lights by their front door.
14
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Ms. Chiang — Well, these fixtures are only .rated for that size bulb so it will burn them
out.
Board Member Thayer — What size bulb?
Ms. Chiang — 60 watt.
Board Member Thayer — And they are all 60s in there now?
Ms. Chiang — Yes.
Board Member Talty — And they are all rated for 60?
Ms. Chiang — Yes.
Board Member Thayer — Because they are bright, but I'll grant you that there aren't
many turned on. I was up there last night and there was only 3 of them on, but they
are still very, very bright.
Ms. Chiang — Well, I think if we had, had the 4,000 -lumen light it would have been even
brighter.
Board Member Thayer — Well, that was for a different purpose though.
Ms. Chiang — It was?
Board Member Thayer — And they were shielded.
Ms. Chiang — Correct.
Board Member Hoffmann — And shielding makes the light come, if it is properly placed,
it makes it come where you want it, like on your door locks so you can see to put the
key and where you are walking and so on. It doesn't spread it out all over. Another
problem that I have, you have provided for us these photographs which show where
the lights are located and these photographs actually show how you would see it in
reality, but then you also provided this, which is a view from up above and I would
think only birds would see the lights from this perspective. It is not very useful.
Ms. Chiang — No, no, no. We only provided those to show you on the overall where the
fixtures were located. That is why we provided the photos as well.
15
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Hoffmann — I see little red dots to indicate where the lights are. The
lights are shielded when you see them from up above, but you are going to see them
from below because they are on a slope.
Ms. Chiang — We really only provided that so that we could explain to you where the
lights were located on the building because these photographs don't show you the
overall building. So it wasn't our intent to...
Board Member Hoffmann — It wasn't a good choice of picture to show.
Ms. Chiang — Well, that was the picture that we had drawn.
Board Member Hoffmann — I am not happy with this.
Board Member Talty — Me neither.
Board Member Thayer — I'm not either. The lights on the community building are
definitely too bright, way too bright.
Mr. Kanter — Can I ask a question about the lights on the community building? Why are
they brighter? Are they the same fixtures as on the residential buildings?
Mr. Brewster — The lights on the community center are a different bulb. They are a
more commercial fixture. They have the same look as this, but the bulb inside it is a
different bulb. It is closer to a metal halite bulb. So that is... that actually when you
see the brightness of those bulbs, it would more closely resemble what these fixtures or
a fixture with that metal halite bulb is. In fact, the 4,000 lumens is actually the lowest
lumen count that you will get out of a metal halite. It actually goes from 4,000 up to
about 6,800 in brightness.
Board Member Tatty —.Is that the fixture and the bulb. that was approved by this board
on that particular facility?
Mr. Brewster — Yes. The metal halite fixture, 4,000 to 6,800 lumen is the one that was
approved.
Board Member Thayer — But it was shielded.
Mr. Kanter — But not that fixture. It was a totally different type of fixture.
Board Member Talty — So we would expect a change on that.
Board Member Thayer — It's in the resolution that they do change that.
W
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Mr. Brewster — The fixture would have shown down, which would have still had the
brightness there exposed on the ground.
Board Member Mitrano — Let's hear from the public.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good idea. Why not?
Board Member Thayer — Sure. Good idea.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is an environmental. issue and I am sure they would like an
opportunity to speak now rather than later. Well done: All right, before you come up.
Let me just make sure everybody is clear. Normally what we would do is we would do
the environmental review. Should we make the determination that there is no
significant environmental impact we then move to the actual site plan in front of us?
We would open the public hearing and give you a chance to speak. Because this is an
environmental issue, the suggestion has been made that we give you a chance to speak
now while we are doing the environmental review. You make speak now if you so
choose. Should we make an environmental determination and move forward to the
review of what is being proposed, we will open the public hearing. You will have an
opportunity to speak once again at that point should you choose to. You do not give
up your right to� speak during the public hearing if you would like to speak now. Having
said that, we'll give the public a chance to speak. You know the drill.
Don Crittenden, 173 Bundy Road
My name is Don Crittenden. I live at 173 Bundy Road. I will be very brief. I think you
remember I objected to this development to begin with. I thought it was improperly
spot zoned and didn't fit in, in this area. I think it is quite obvious now to anybody
coming down Route 13 how this just sticks out like a sore thumb and I think we need to
do whatever we can to try to minimize the impact. One of the things we were
concerned with there is the light pollution. I am glad to hear that you all sort of feel
the same way. You want to be out a little bit in the country. We are not in the city.
We want to be able to go out and enjoy the night sky and feel like we are having an
evening and not right beside a parking lot. So when you make this decision, anything
you can do to try to minimize this light pollution would be really greatly appreciated by
some of the neighbors. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Someone else like to speak at this point? Don't all raise your
hands at once.
Rosalind Grippi, 9 Orchard Hill Road
My name is Rosalind Grippi and my husband and I own the chapel and the schoolhouse,
which is adjacent or very close to the Overlook development.
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I have an address please?
Ms. Grippi — We live at 9 Orchard Hill Road, Ithaca NY.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you.
Ms. Grippi — Okay. My husband and I are concerned not only with the affects of the
violation of the lighting code in respect to the schoolhouse and the chapel, but also for
the cemetery. We are concerned about the violation of this code because of the
cemetery. I am not speaking for the cemetery. I am speaking as an individual and my
husband. We think it is disrespectful if the lights are interfering with it, but we haven't
examined it. We think that it is up to the Town to do a close examination of the affects
of this lighting on this cemetery and on the adjacent buildings, which have and
outbuildings by the way are residentially coded. At any rate, we think it is disrespectful
for the significance of the cemetery, not only as a cemetery per se, but also where
runaway slaves have been buried. The lighting we also think must respect the
aesthetics of the neighborhood, the whole area and certainly the cemetery we are
concerned about that. That cemetery has been elegantly described by the abolitionist
George Johnson in the 19th century as a sylvan retreat. The whole area had that
character. Also, we think that Overlook 's decision to put the unshielded lights in when
Overlook had agreed in their application to install shielded lights is disrespectful to the
Town and to the Town Code, which is intended to protect adjacent properties and the
aesthetics of the neighborhood. Therefore, we hope that you will examine the lighting
very, very closely and its affects on the cemetery, the schoolhouse, etc, the whole
neighborhood.
Then there is another matter. The plans submitted by Overlook clearly indicated
an uninterrupted, thickly planted buffer zone and in the plan it was specified as a
required buffer zone. Instead, there were tall trees that had existed in that are
generally. These were removed and pulled down and there have been no substitute
plantings as we can see so that the buffer zone is not a buffer zone. After the buildings
went up, then the Town administrators responsibly examined this problem because we
complained about it and they concluded the plan did indicate a buffer zone that looked
like it should be heavily planted. The administration of the Town stated that they would
contact Overlook to correct this condition and the buffer zone not only should have
trees, but it should also include some evergreen trees because I think this is a very
precious area of the Town. I think that special attention should be given to the
problems of the neighbors of the Overlook development.
Just one very quick statement. Recently a plot was found in T -neck and as they
looked into it they found that it had a history of the burial from other cultures, Indian
culture and also slaves. The Town contributed to purchase this land because they felt it
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
was very precious and the person who led this said this land will make it easier for
children to learn that the slave trade was not just a southern phenomenon and it is a
window to begin to put out in the public arena and hopefully change the way history
will be taught in the public schools. I don't think Ithaca should ignore that Hayts area,
the whole Hayts area also honors the past history of Ithaca and I hope you will make
correct decisions on both the lighting and the buffer zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before .you leave. First of all, the only issue that is before us
tonight is the lighting. Have you been in touch with the zoning enforcement office with
regard to the buffer zone?
Ms. Grippi — I think a representative came up with Valentino and looked at it, but that
was this spring and nothing has been done. I trust that in the spring maybe the trees
will be put in. Thank you.
Ann Byrne, 137 Hopkins Road
His I am Ann Byrne. I live on 137 Hopkins Road, but I would like to read for you a
quick letter from my neighbors, Joe and Denise McErny on 131 Hopkins Road. They
couldn't make it tonight so they asked me to read this.
"We would like you to install the shielded lights in the West Hill Overlook
complex as was originally promised. "
Ms. Byrne I would like to tell you the picture ... I don't know that you got that kind of
has that view where you are looking down, I haven't seen the pictures, but from our
second floor we do see right into some of the windows of this apartment complex.
When I drove around, I think it was Friday night, unlike you there were a lot of those
lights on and almost every place there was a car in front of the apartment that light
was on. So I think certainly it depends on if the resident is home or not, but I was
surprised at just how bright they were. Then I went up the hill and drove where the
center was, where the bigger the really bright lights were and it was like looking into
the sun. I said that this was ridiculous and certainly hope that it would be shielded.
The buffer zone I am not quite sure when it goes up, how long it is going to take to go
up so those lights are pretty important to us as we look right at that Overlook project. I
know that you were told that we were only going to see rooftop, but that is not true.
We see more than rooftops. We look right into the windows so it really affects us more
specifically because we are directly behind this and the shielded lights would make it
more pleasant for us to deal with this monstrosity in our backyard. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you.
19
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Andy Bryne, 137 Hopkins Road
Hi. I am Andy Bryne. I live at 137 Hopkins Road. I can't say that I am surprised that
this company put the lights in and disregarded your orders or your design. We spent a
summer being woken up in the morning at 4 o'clock, 4:30. Bulldozers running at 10:30
at night. We had to call the Sheriff's office 5 times. The Sheriff told us that he met
with the owner, the foreman three or four times to try and get them to stop. They
would not stop. So every morning all summer long, my wife, my children were woken
up at 4 o'clock, 4:30 in the morning by hammers, bulldozers, trucks backing up with
total disregard to the Sheriff when we called them. He told us he, met with them and
went over the ordinance 3. or 4 times and they continued to ignore him. The light does
spill into our second floor of our house right now and I hope that it is shielded and you
look at the lights that are being used. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you very much.
Back to the board. I chastised them; I guess I kind of tipped my hand that I am not
pleased with what is there. We should note that the lighting. on the residential
buildings, not the lighting that is on the community center would be exempt, is exempt
from the Town's lighting ordinance because of the number of lumens. But having said
that, I wanted it shielded. We wanted it shielded. We collectively wanted it shielded.
Board Member Hoffmann — And it seems to me since we are just about, I don't think
the light...has the light ordinance been put into effect?
Mr. Kanter —Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — All right. Well, we worked on that for a long time to have it
in effect and now it is in effect and it seems like saying we didn't mean it if we allow
this to go through without being shielded. The lights being shielded.
Mr. Kanter — Again what Fred was mentioning is these particular lights that were
installed with the 60 watt bulbs producing lumens of about 800 would be exempt from
the shielding requirements of the new lighting law.
Chairperson Wilcox — Not the ones on the community center.
Mr. Kanter — Correct. The ones on the residential buildings.
Chairperson Wilcox — They are in violation.
Ms. Brock — Nonetheless, your resolution of site plan approval specified what needed to
be included and it said shielded and you do have the authority to continue to follow that
if that is your pleasure.
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think that the lights necessarily have to have such
high lumens as the ones they had originally wanted to have, which they discovered had
too much light. It can be something with less light and shielded and that will make for
a much better situation for everybody, for the residents and for the people who live
around there. So I don't understand why it has to be an unshielded light just because
it have a lower light intensity.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do we need Grace and David back up here? Do you have
questions for them right now, anybody? I have a sense of the board, now I have to
look at you where we, go. Before I do that, the issue here is, well there are two
potential issues. One issue is we said shielded, we didn't get shielded. The other issue
is, is that because the lights are not shielded, there is the potential for spillage up and
out that was not intended and that has an environmental impact that certainly we didn't
want to happen.
Board Member Conneman — My question is, if you made them shield the lights that
would eliminate the environmental impact?
Chairperson Wilcox — Good question. The reason I need to look over here is, is that we
normally go to what is the environmental impact and we are saying collectively that
there is an environmental impact.
Board Member Conneman — We will never get to mitigating it if we turn down the
environmental impact.
Chairperson Wilcox — So what are our choices here?
Ms. Brock — First the standard is, is there a potential for a significant environmental
impact, not any environmental impact requires a positive declaration. It has to be
significant. So you might determine regardless of which way the board votes that you
don't think there is a potential for a significant environmental impact or perhaps you
think there is. You could also do a conditioned negative declaration.
Board Member Mitrano — I didn't hear that.
Ms. Brock — A conditioned negative declaration...
Chairperson Wilcox — Where you condition it on...
Ms. Brock - ...certain mitigating actions being undertaken by the applicant. That if they
undertake those actions, there wouldn't be a significant...
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Mitrano — So they wouldn't have to do a whole great big thing when we
are really focused on this one issue?
Ms. Brock — Right. They wouldn't have to do any EIS because it would be a negative
declaration.
Chairperson Wilcox — Condition on, for example, insuring all of the light fixtures were
shielded, for example.
Mr. Kanter — Is there another option and we talked about this, I think the last time we
talked about it was with the Zoning Board where if the board's decision would be to
deny the request for the change in the lights that that can be done without reaching an
environmental determination.
Ms. Brock — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox — And make the applicant come back with a new application or a
revised application. Susan, the reason I looked at you is the catch -22 I don't want to
get caught up in is that we make the determination that there is no significant
environmental impact but then turn around and make them change the lights. A
reasonable person could possibly look at the Planning Board's decision and say on the
one hand how can you environmentally determine that there is no significant
environmental impact and then turn around and say you must change the lights. I
want to make sure we don't get caught by essentially saying one thing with the
environmental review and doing something different with the site plan.
Board Member Mitrano — May I offer an approach? How can we get those lights
shielded through the process of whatever we need to do? What process do we need to
follow?
Chairperson Wilcox — I think we have been offered two. We can condition the
declaration that there is no significant impact or we can simply turn down the
application right now.
Board Member Talty — Does that mean that they would go back to the previous fixture
that we approved with the higher lumens?
Board Member Hoffmann — Its not manufactured any more.
Ms. Brock — The residential fixture has been discontinued, I think they said, by the
manufacturer. So they would need to come in with a new application, I suppose for a
different fixture and a request for modification of the site plan to approve the different
fixture.
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Talty — But you could still have the same lumens in a different fixture.
Ms. Brock — Did the site plan approve specify the type of fixture?
Mr. Kanter — Yeah. It was actually a spec sheet.
.
Ms. Brock — So they would need to come in for modification of site plan approval.
Board Member Talty — So by that fixture being discontinued that also because they are
connected with the lumens, they would have to reapply...I just don't want this bulb that
is a high lumen bulb, just because this particular fixture is discontinued they come back
with a different shielded fixture and put this same lumen bulb into the fixture. It's
obvious that they don't need that high a lumen.
Ms. Brock — Nor do I think they want it because now there is general site lighting that is
being provided. It sounded like the purpose of the lights on the residential building
originally were actually to provide general site lighting, but now there are other pole -
mounted fixtures that are doing that and that is why they went to something with a
lower lumen on the walls of the residential building.
Mr. Walker — They changed the fixture totally. They put up the wall pack unit, which is
probably half the cost of what they had specked out.
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think that when they showed us the fixture they
were planning to put up and we approved it because it was shielded, but I don't think
we specifically said it had to be that amount of lumens because very often light fixtures
will say it will take a bulb that will give up to a certain amount of lumens. So I don't
think it has to be that they have to replace it with something with that high a lumen
amount. The other thing that I wanted to mention is I am quite sure that in other
cases we have approved a SEQR resolution because we did. not see a significant
environmental impact from light fixtures, but that under site plan approval we decided
that it would make a better situation for everybody if the light fixtures were shielded
and if there were all these other things. So I 'don't see that the two are necessarily
connected.
Ms. Brock — I agree. I think it is a different threshold to determine whether the
potential is there for a significant environmental impact that requires a positive
declaration and an environmental impact statement. I think that is a different standard
than your exercise of your authority to require certain elements in site plan.
Board Member Thayer — That is before%construction and now we are after construction
and they didn't follow our instructions.
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Conneman — Suppose they went back and we tabled this and they went
back and corrected the situation, they wouldn't have to come back to us, would they?
If they shielded the lights?
Ms. Brock Well, I think they still would need to get your approval for whatever is
going to be installed on the residential building because the manufacturer has
discontinued the approved fixture the residential building.
Chairperson Wilcox — Our resolution was so specific it requires a particular...
Board Member Hoffmann - Because that is the one that they showed us.
Board Member Thayer — I wonder if it is a possibility in getting more opaque lens on
this particular fixture.
Board Member Hoffmann — It's not quite the same as shielding it anyway.
Board Member Thayer — Well, if you couldn't see the bulb. I don't know... because now
you can see the bulb very vividly.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right and if you do have a clear bulb and you have this kind
of clear glass, even though it has these ridges...
Board Member Thayer — This is kind of frosted, but still, you can see the bulb.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the ridges tend to scatter the lights, I think and that
makes it more glaring.
Chairperson Wilcox — I get the sense that we are unanimous about we don't like the
existing lighting and we would like all the lighting shielded, both on the community
center and the residential buildings.
Board Member Mitrano — I would be open to other options of frosting or whatever you
just said.
Chairperson Wilcox — Five of us are it will be shielded.
Board Member Thayer — One way or another.
Board Member Talty —That's not exactly. I think its honorable that Larry is saying that,
but I think he is offering an olive branch, but I'm not happy at on what happened and I
don't think that we should offer an olive branch on this one.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm just getting a sense of the board.
Board Member Thayer — I'm not offering, I'm just wondering if it's possible.
Board Member Talty — Anything is possible, but the bottom line is they put up a
fixture ... when as soon as they found out it was discontinued, they knew what they were
doing, they do this all the time. They should have come back to Jonathan and said we
have a problem here. We can't get this light fixture, what do you want us to do. They
didn't. They went with a lower cost fixture for sure, I'd bet anything on it, and now we
have a problem where there is light spillage and they are coming back and begging for
forgiveness.
Board Member Mitrano — What is the name of the builder?
Board Member Conneman - ...(not audible) ... that the developer doesn't do what we tell
them?
Board Member Talty — I would. I've been to the last three meetings and there has
been three different occasions where developers haven't done what they have said.
Board Member Conneman — That's fine and you are willing to hold them accountable.
Board Member Talty — I mean the last time is Rite Aid, which I excused myself from,
but I still know what is going on. Okay, with the fence and a few other things, the
sprinkler system, whatever. And I forget what the other example was. But it just
seems ... and I take with great heart what Eva said. It just seems like we are going
through these things and its not a question of enforcement because they are probably
overwhelmed as well, but when we pass these things and I specifically have asked
numerous times for developers, architects, whoever to bring in the materials so we can
see what we are passing. That is why I am asking.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me see what we can do. Grace?
Board Member Talty — Sorry. No offense.
Board Member Mitrano — What was the name of the builder? I'm just curious. It
sounds like they were rather, quite egregious.
Chairperson Wilcox — The sense of the board is, is that what you presented to us is not
going to be approved. With the agreement of the board members I would hope that
you could revise, come back with a revised plan for how to deal with the lights that
shields all of them.
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Ms. Chiang — Can I ask you a question?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely.
Ms. Chiang — Would a scheme that shielded the existing fixture be one, if we could find
a way to do that, would that be an acceptable solution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me start.
Board Member Mitrano. - Possibly.
Chairperson Wilcox — Possibly. Thank you very much. I'm sorry. I'll think out loud.
The concern that I would have would be that any modification to the existing lights has
to be permanent so that the residents can't remove it. So that it doesn't get blown off
by the wind or something like that. I would have to be convinced that the modifications
to the light were as permanent as the light, the existing fixture itself. We are talking
about the residential buildings. The ones on the community center I'd have to see
what you proposed. Right now I'm predisposed to want those to be replaced, but if
you come back with a solution.
Ms. Chiang — Is this acceptable for the community center?
Chairperson Wilcox — I haven't heard any disagreement with regard to the community
center because your proposal is to remove the existing four lights and replace them
with something that is consistent with something that we approved that is fully
shielded.
Board Member Mitrano — So that's good.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that's good. The issue is the remaining ones on the building
and I would ask that you go away tonight, we'll table this and that you come back with
a revised way to deal with it. Staff would then have to redo the environmental review
and we would go through this again. That would be the best way.
Ms. Chiang — I think so, too.
Board Member Mitrano — May I ask the attorney a couple of questions...
Board Member Talty — If I could on the coattails of that, instead of us...they come back
and I am willing to look at additional shielding for the current fixture. However, instead
of us going hey that looks great, it looks aesthetically pleasing. Okay we have. done all
our shielding tests and everything. Instead of saying okay we have to go and switch
the bulb, maybe we should switch a few of them and test them. Because if we go and
26
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
pass it again on all of the information that we have in front of us on hard copies, we.
don't know if that is actually going to assist the neighbors in that area. So instead of
going and having a huge expense not only to the developer, but our time here, that we
go and maybe have a test trial of 10 lights and if they work then you can install all the
rest. And if they don't, then we know that you guys did not spend a lot of money
and ... I'm just a little worried at this point that they come back in, they bring the whole
fixture and set it on the desk, it looks great and all of a sudden again it is not working
the way it should.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think that is an excellent idea because then we can also
see if the light functions for the way it is supposed to.
Board Member Talty — I hate to set a precedent with this, but really there is no
precedent for this because this is kind of the first time that I have been involved where
something like this has happened. I don't think future projects we should install 10. I
don't want to say that. I'm saying for this specific instance where there has been a
high interest in the neighborhood where a lot of the neighbors have come in numerous
times, specifically for this particular issue, I think it may be in everyone's best interest
to maybe do a test run.
Chairperson Wilcox — And we work hard to minimize impacts.
Board Member Talty — Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know if we need 10, maybe we need 2 that are shielded
just to see how...
Ms. Brock — And I would suggest that that be done before you entertain a new
resolution.
Board Member Thayer — Oh, yeah.
Ms. Brock — As opposed to passing some resolution saying yes we will approve this if it
passes our test. You need to have some of them changed or the shielding put up, go
out, look at it, before your meeting at which you are asked to approve that shielding for
all of them so that when you come to the meeting you will already know whether this
looks like it is going to work or not.
Chairperson Wilcox — Grace, from an architectural perspective...
Ms. Chiang — Yeah. That sounds like a great idea. I would much rather do that as well.
27
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — Given your profession, what are you aware of that could be done
to those lights?
Ms. Chiang — Well, I mean we talked about this a little bit before we came here. We
didn't take it all the way because we wanted to see if you would be agreeable to this,
but clearly you are so we've talked about building some kind of a permanent shield that
would shield the entire fixture and the light would only come out of the bottom. So we
will pursue that line of thinking and design something that would do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — So this would be a separate shield over the light?
Ms. Chiang — Maybe. I mean I am going to have to take a closer look at the light. I'm
not sure. Maybe it would be over the existing light, maybe we would remove the lens
and the cover that is on there and build something over it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Why does that just sound ... just doesn't sound as good as
changing...
Board Member Thayer — As putting a new fixture up.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I am just wondering if as you are thinking about this if
you come up with more than one idea that you might create a couple of alternatives,
which might help you as well as us.
Ms. Chiang — Certainly if we come up with several thoughts we will try that.
Board Member Talty — I was just saying that I understand where you are going because
different fixtures have different brackets and there is different construction as they
hand on the home and so I understand what you are doing, I just hope it looks
aesthetically pleasing and functionally so. If they function, but if it looks bad...
Ms. Chiang — Believe me, I don't want something that looks bad either.
Chairperson Wilcox — Susan?
Ms. Brock — I believe the application said that because the general site lighting is now
being provided by these pole - mounted fixtures that the fixtures on the walls of the
residential buildings are decorative only. So I guess my question to you is, why do you
need those lights at all? Could you just remove them?
Ms. Chiang — Well, I mean...I mean they are primarily decorative. They provide a little
bit of light right at the door for the resident. We might try removing one and see what
its like. There is, you know, because... particularly the doors that are underneath the
28
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
porches. Those are the ones that the general site lighting, you know, is somewhat
shielded by the decks that are above it.
Ms. Brock — But the second floor lights, perhaps, don't serve much of a function and
might have more of an impact on the neighbors.
Ms. Chiang - Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean if we did do a fixture that did just throw
light down and does through a little bit of light on the deck for the times when, you
know, when it increases the light on the deck a little bit for when the tenant is using the
deck. So I guess I would have to discuss that with the owner and see what his feeling
is about that.
Chairperson Wilcox.— I ask that you move with some haste.
Ms. Chiang.— Yes. We will do that. He is anxious to get it resolved as well.
Chairperson Wilcox — We're interested, I know that the neighbors are, but we're
interested in getting this resolved as well.
Ms. Brock — So we need to decide procedurally what to do with their application,
whether we table.it or it's adjourn...
Chairperson Wilcox — They are going to come back with a new application.
Ms. Brock — ...whether you want to withdraw it at this moment.
Ms. Chiang — Yeah, I guess we could do that. Is that okay for us to withdraw it and
come back?
Ms. Brock — Without prejudice to bring this or another_ application before the Planning
Board?
Ms. Chiang — Right. We will come back with a modified...
Ms. Brock — And do you want to specify a date by which you would like to see a new
application? That would be ready for consideration at a date certain by this board?
Chairperson Wilcox — I have asked that they move quickly. I'm not sure...
Board Member Mitrano — With all deliberate speed.
29
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Ms. Brock - That's why I thought maybe we would want to specify one of the future
meetings that the documents be submitted in enough time for it to appear before the
Planning Board...
Mr. Walker — I think they want to resolve this quickly because their CO's are dependent
on this issue.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are they still operating
Occupancy?
Mr. Walker — Yes.
Board Member Talty — When do they expire, Dan?
Mr. Walker — I'm not sure.
Mr. Kanter — Let me also ask, are there any
these wall packs have been installed yet?
Mr. Whitney No.
Mr. Kanter — Good. Don't.
under temporary Certificates of
buildings in phase lb where lights similar to
Chairperson. Wilcox — I mean I would certainly like to see them back in ... I would love to
have them back for the first meeting in December, and it should be a relatively...if they
come back with what we want it should be a relatively brief agenda item. I don't know
what is coming up, what.is in the pipeline.
Mr. Walker — Could I ask ... maybe a suggestion. Right now apparently the fixtures that
were approved with this type of downward type, the shape of the fixture I don't think is
as critical that ... that is apparently has shielding all around it and directs the light
downward, apparently similar to this type of a fixture. If they were to provide staff with
a fixture that effectively operated the same as this fixture although instead of being
conical it may be cylindrical. Would staff have the latitude to approve this kind of a
substitute for something that is not available?
Mr. Kanter — Would staff be willing to approve that? No.
Mr. Walker — Okay. I'm just...
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think the board wants to give this one up.
Mr. Kanter — With this one, no.
30
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think we are willing to give this one up.
Mr. Walker — What happens if they can't get the fixture?
Chairperson Wilcox - If they can't get the fixture then they come back with a substitute
that meets the criteria...
Board Member Conneman — .Fred, if you ask them to do an experiment, it is going to
take longer than between now and...
Chairperson Wilcox — I know. That's the issue. If we ask them to test then one must
give them some time in order to test, design, implement, photograph,, whatever
review...
Board Member Mitrano — Ask Grace how long she thinks she needs
Board Member Hoffmann — But that was not something that we asked. It was
proposed, I believe, by you, wasn't it?
Chairperson Wilcox — It was actually Kevin's idea.
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, all right.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, let's ask Grace how long she might need and see if it is
reasonable.
Ms. Chiang — Well, I think the first December meeting is probably too soon because we
do have to design something and then we have to get the contractor to build something
and we have to get our application in two weeks, I think it is. Is that correct, Jonathan?
Chairperson Wilcox — There is a lead -time.
Mr. Kanter — Its more than that.
Ms. Chiang — More than that. That is only 4 weeks away, so if the application is...
Mr. Walker — Are you talking about designing something to shield this fixture?
Ms. Chiang — Well, that is one option that I just wanted to know if they would be willing
to entertain.
Mr. Walker — Replacing the fixture is going to be a better deal.
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Thayer — Absolutely.
Mr. Walker — There is no question about it.
Ms. Chiang — Well, I mean, you know I am also thinking about ... those fixtures are just
going to get thrown away because it is too late to give them back to the contractor and
I would like not to do that either.
Mr. Walker — That was a poor choice by the owner. We have been dealing with these
issues all through this whole project on changes that we have been dealing with on the
site work and everything else and I know the code enforcement officer has been
dealing with it constantly on the buildings, too, so we would accept an equal substitute
probably would be...
Ms. Chiang — Okay, but did I just hear people say that they did not like the conical
fixture or the cylindrical fixture?
Mr. Walker — I didn't hear them say that. I just said that the staff didn't want to make
that decision. I mean, you had a fixture that was shown that directed the light
downward and now you have a fixture that is mounted on the wall that directs light
everywhere.
Ms. Chiang — Yes. I understand.
Mr. Walker — There is a significant difference.
Board Member Thayer — To say the least.
Board Member Talty — So I guess for direction, what Eva said I think is correct is bring
multiple ideas in.
Ms. Chiang — Okay.
Ms. Brock — Well.:.
Board Member Conneman — And probably bring something in that is already designed
because it is going to be a lot easier for you to do, a lot quicker than if you...
Board Member Talty — It might be more expensive.
Board Member. Hoffmann — I'm not sure that we were talking about having designs
brought in. I thought ... what I heard was that they were going to put up some
examples on the buildings...
32
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Talty - ... maybe ... if we don't like what they are bringing in on the current
housing of the current fixture, then I don't want them not to have plan b, like going out
and buying a new fixture.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, that is in their interest to do that.
Board Member Mitrano — We are requiring something that meets the original conditions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me see if I can ... I don't want multiple either. If they are going
to try to design a hood something, then they better test before they come in here. I
want them to come in with a viable solution that we can consider. I don't want options.
Board Member Talty — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is their job to come in with something. If it is something that
they are going to build themselves, they better test it. If it is something that is
commercially available, that is shielded, with a cut sheet that can be reviewed both by
us and by staff and the engineer that is fine, too. But they are certainly aware of what
we wanted when we provided the approval originally.
Board Member Hoffmann — Its true, Fred...
Chairperson Wilcox — Grace certainly knows what we want.
Board Member Hoffmann — It is true that it is their job to test it and come up with a
viable alternative, and then it is our job to say yes or no.
Chairperson Wilcox — Correct.
Board Member Hoffmann — Bu
had a chance, if they do come
have a chance to look at it on
I just thought it might be helpful in speeding it up if we
up with two or three alternatives and they test it and we
the building before they come in and tell us which ones
they prefer and then we say yes or no. Because then we have had a chance to see it
function as well as just a drawing of it and a description.
Chairperson Wilcox — We don't normally do that.
Board Member Hoffmann — We don't.
4
Chairperson Wilcox — We normally just require cut sheets and...
Board Member Hoffmann — But this is not a normal case. We don't normally ask people
to replace things, either.
33
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — That's true.
Board Member Talty — Many replacements.
Board Member Thayer — There is a lot of shielded lights out there. They pick out one
and put it up there.
Board Member Talty — How many are we talking about?
Ms. Chiang — I believe 64.
Board Member Talty — So we are talking about 64 fixtures.
Board Member Thayer — So the old ones will have to...
Chairperson Wilcox — Self- induced is the way I look at it.
Board Member Mitrano — May I ask a tangential question? So what is the relationship
between the architect and the builder or ... and or how was it that there were these
repeated violations of what we established in terms of the time, not to mention
whatever existing codes or noise ordinance exist. How is a builder allowed to continue
to operate in violation of Kevin's code, with respect to what time these trucks go in and
out of the construction site and normal noise ordinances?
Ms. Chiang — We don't have any kind of a contractual relationship with them. We have
a contractual relationship with the owner and the contractor has a contractual
relationship with the owner.
Board Member Mitrano — Do you have any influence in terms of...?
Ms. Chiang — We do not have influence over means and methods, which is really what
you are talking about. We are ... our responsibility to the owner is to make sure that the
building is built in accordance with codes and with the drawings.
Board Member Mitrano — Right. Well, so, maybe just a thought then. If a sheriff
doesn't seem to be enough and I'm not asking now, but if you ever were in the future
to become aware of repeated violations, ...behavior, then, you know, lets all get
together and work on it because that is just not right. So you could hold up your
approvals and you can say to an owner that this in inappropriate and you don't want to
work with people that cause you this kind of embarrassment publicly and call the sheriff
again and let them know that multiple people have concerns about this. I'm done.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all set?
34
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November.21, 2006
Board Member Mitrano — Yup.
Mr. Kanter — So where are we? Do you want to summarize?
Chairperson Wilcox — Grace, you are clear what we want?
Ms. Chiang — Well, I'm not entirely clear now if we are still looking for multiple solutions
or a single solution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Come back with something that is consistent with what we
approved originally.
Board Member Mitrano — And then it is sort of up to you to see...
Chairperson Wilcox — If it is something you buy, bring the specifications, bring the cut
sheets...
Board Member Thayer — Bring the fixture.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah ... if it is something you are going to design then I think you
had better install it and review and test it and give us an opportunity to go and see it at
night.
Board Member Talty — And the public.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah ... okay, Jonathan, does that answer your question?
Mr. Kanter — Yup.
Ms. Chiang — And we have not put a timeframe on that, correct? Because I am not
sure I can give you an exact...?
Chairperson Wilcox — I would certainly like to see you by the end of the year.
Ms. Chiang — We will certainly try to do that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me ask another question. Can they go ahead and change the
lights on the community center?
Mr. Kanter — I think they could change them, whether or not it would be something this
board would be approving for a change, I don't know how you would do that in
conjunction with the withdrawal of the application.
35
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I know you're right.
Mr. Walker — Was this fixture on the community center, too, originally.
Ms. Chiang — Well, to be honest, you know, we didn't actually say. We just said that
they were going to be mounted on the building and we never said where they ... we
never showed them on the drawing.
Mr. Kanter — That was the cut sheet that presumably would apply to everything and we
never saw anything like that.
Mr. Walker — So again, a function of this type of a fixture where the bulb is up inside of
the shielded part of the fixture and this is one that has a fancy skirt on it, but the bulb
is still above it so it's downward directed. If they get the same function, then a slight
substitution if it is curved or doesn't really make a lot of difference... it's the glare you
are looking at.
Chairperson Wilcox — I feel like I am in an awkward situation because as much as we
would want the light pollution issue corrected and as much as we agree upon the
solution on the community center building specifically, they run the risk of making a
change that has not been approved.
Mr. Walker — So the best way is for them to provide the proposal...
Chairperson Wilcox — ...is to get back here as quickly as they can so that we can get it
approved.
Mr. Kanter — Let me ask a question, though, to the board. They have brought in a
suggested solution for the community center building specifically. If the board were
comfortable enough with that without giving any approvals tonight and they went
ahead and changed to. that fixture on the building and then they came back in with that
proposal as part of the overall proposal, would the board be likely to. approve that
portion of it?
Board Member Hoffmann — I would ask a question about one of those light fixtures...
Board Member Talty — I would do that.
Board Member Thayer — I would.
Mr. Kanter — Okay.
m
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question based on something that I saw today
when I was up driving on Triphammer Road near the Triphammer shopping center.
Could you hold up the sheet with the light fixture ... they have put up some new street
lights in that area, which has that kind of fixture on top of it, but it has a ... this is the
bottom edge of the fixture. It has a glass part that sticks down like this where. the bulb
is. Is that what that one has, too..
Mr. Walker — I don't believe so.
Mr. Kanter — No.
Board Member Hoffmann - ...or is the bulb actually up in the metal part?
Mr. Walker — The bottom of the bulb is flush with the bottom of the skirt.
Chairperson Wilcox — Unlike the new street lamps, which have been placed along
Triphammer Road.
Board Member Hoffmann — That must be awful when the lights are on. I saw it during
the day.
Chairperson Wilcox — I haven't Seen it at night yet. I've had problems with the one, for
example, in the Village of Dryden. You come down the hill on 13 in the Village of
Dryden ... glare, yes. So lets go back to the question.
Mr. Kanter — So actually, a follow up to that. This fixture also appears not to have the
bulb projecting downward passed the fixtures. It is up within the shielded part.
Board Member Hoffmann — But is it flush with the bottom edge? The bottom of the
bulb, is it flush with the bottom edge of the fixture?
Board Member Thayer. On that cut sheet, it says lamp options one 2&watt .quad
electronic. What the heck is that?
Mr. Walker — Those are those florescent energy saving bulbs. Quad has four loops in it.
Board Member Thayer — Okay. So it's not an incandescent bulb?
Mr. Walker — No. It's a high pressure florescent.
Ms. Brock — Did the Planning Board's prior approval specify the type of fixture that was
to be used on the community center?
37
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Mr. Kanter — Not that building, per se, no.
Ms. Brock — What was included in the approval?
Mr. Kanter — It was all that one cut sheet was for all wall- mounted units in the whole
development.
Ms. Brock So the Planning Board approval was for that specific type of fixture
everywhere?
Mr. Kanter — Yes.
Ms. Brock — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — Both on the residential buildings and on the community center.
Ms. Brock — All right. I was just trying to determine whether in fact they were to install
a cylindrical fixture, whether that might in fact comply with your prior approval, but it
sounds like it doesn't. It's a different fixture.
Mr. Kanter But what we are trying to determine now is if they were to go ahead and
change to this new fixture on the community center...
Chairperson Wilcox - ...would that be acceptable...
Mr. Kanter - ...would that likely be acceptable as part of the proposal when they. do
come back in.
Ms. Brock — And just so the tape is clear, this fixture refers to the cylindrical fixture.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right.
Mr. Kanter — Thereby at least partially starting to address the solution ahead of time.
Chairperson Wilcox — Whether than having to wait.
Board Member Thayer — As long as there is a top on that fixture. You can't tell if there
is or not.
Mr. Walker — Well it says it meets the dark sky requirements, which...
Mr. Kanter — Part of the problem I have personally found with these cut sheets for this
particular company is they are not very detailed and they don't really give you all the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
information you need. I've been talking with David several times about getting that
kind of information and this sheet still really doesn't provide it.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah. It doesn't show where the bulb sits.
Board Member Talty — Then I would say lets get a sample and see how it works
because sometimes those fixtures, those bulbs go way up inside, sometimes they are
flush and sometimes they protrude.
Chairperson Wilcox — And if they protrude then. we are back to the glare problem and
light spillage.
Mr. Brewster — If you can see on that sheet, the LPC sheet, there is a baffle that is sold
with this and the baffle size is there listed as 1 5/8 inches and what that does is that
goes ... that slides up in the bottom of that fixture. So the light is actually above this
baffle. So the bottom of the light, the closest to the bottom of this fixture would be 2
inches. So that shows you that the ... (not audible) ... is actually 2 inches from the bottom
of the fixture and then proceeding upward into the fixture with a cap on the top of the
fixture. The reason why they may not show you a downward view is they are trying to
show you what the insido fixture and that the bulb is not down inside. But it has to
have a top on it due to the elements, the electrical features inside because this is a
fixture that could be mounted in direct weather applications.
Chairperson Wilcox — How did you get from 1 and 5/8 to 2 inches?
Mr. Brewster — Because generally the inch and 5/8, the bulb doesn't stop right there at
the top of the baffle.
Ms. Chiang — It may not be exactly, too, but it's definitely more than an inch and 5/8.
Board Member Hoffmann — It is just like lumber, right?
Board Member Talty So just so
day I get free sample requests in
be sent out for you guys. I mean
the bulb, with baffle. So I would
you guys decide unless you are n
building.
this board member makes himself very clear. Every
my business. It is very easy to request a sample to`
they could FedEx it overnight if they wanted to, with
really recommend bringing in a sample of whatever
counting something that is made out of wood to the
Chairperson Wilcox — Nonetheless, the question before us is, would we be comfortable
with them going ahead and replacing the 4 lights on the community center with the
lights shown here given "that we would be likely to approve that change when they
come back with a proposed solution to the lighting on the residential buildings?
39
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Board Member Hoffmann = Based on the additional information we got tonight, I would
Board Member Thayer - ...to use the same fixture on the...?
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm saying go ahead and replace the 4 on the community building.
Board Member Thayer — But it could be the same fixture?
Chairperson Wilcox — We don't know yet what they are going to do on the residential
building, but go ahead and ... the problem is, we can't commit this board to a decision
that we may or may not make in 4 weeks. or 8 weeks or 12 weeks. So there is clearly a
risk, but the sense of the board that I am getting is, is that LP4A339, is what I am
looking at here, is okay and that they light bulb is recessed and inch and 5/8 at least
and that it is consistent with the dark sky standards. Right?
Mr. Kanter — That's what it says.
Chairperson Wilcox — And it is fully shielded.
Board Member Thayer — And we wouldn't have to have that restriction in the resolution
next time.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right.
Board Member Conneman — And it would reduce the light for the neighbors now.
Ms. Chiang — I guess I'm a little unclear because you can't act on it. So are we at...I
mean I understand that you guys are sort of taking a straw poll and you are all saying
you like the fixture, but if I advise the owner to change it and something happens
between now and then, then you guys could change your mind and he might have to
change it again.
Chairperson Wilcox — You are at risk. Yes, you are.
Ms. Chiang — So I guess, I think if I were the owner I probably wouldn't change them
until I got a final...
Chairperson Wilcox — On the other hand, if I was the owner, I would say why did I put
these light fixtures on anyways and if I am going to be a good neighbor, why don't I
get them replaced with something that is consistent with what this board approved.
That would be a good thing for the owner to do and to do it quickly.
Board Member Thayer — Absolutely.
.I
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — That would be being a good neighbor.
Ms. Chiang — I'm just looking at ... he is already going to be doing something to 64
fixtures and...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sympathetic given what they put there. I'm speaking for
myself. Self induced here.
Ms. Chiang — I mean I think he would be happy to change them knowing you approved
it. The problem is we are at a weird point here where you can't approve it because
there is no resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox - So the choice that we have here now is to...
Ms. Chiang — I'm not saying he's not going to, I just ... I'm going to have to have this
discussion with him.
Chairperson Wilcox — We can proceed with this application, part of it and then you
come back with another application, another filing fee and everything else and we could
approve, presumably, the change on the community center and then you come back
with a new application.
Ms. Chiang — I'm not trying to be difficult. I just want to know what I should be saying
to the owner.
Chairperson Wilcox — I realize that. This board cannot commit itself to what it is going
to do in the future and will not do that. It would be a smart thing to do. Unfortunately,
I think that is where we are right now.
Question from the audience.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, because we are not going to hold the public hearing. They
have withdrawn their application. We are done.
Ms. Brock — But at future meetings...
Chairperson Wilcox — When they come back you'll get your chance to speak. What's
the issue? Go ahead. Come on up to the microphone.
Mr. Byrne — Its just. a question of ... it's a question. So if I see something happening at
this ... in the construction of this project that I don't think meets what I think you guys
approved, what do I do?
m
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Chairperson Wilcox — You talk to zoning enforcement. It is the enforcement office you
need to talk to.
Mr. Kanter — Dan is actually in charge of the code enforcement section and Kristie Rice
is the Senior Code Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Byrne — So we call Dan and say they are dumping all this stuff in our
backyard.... (not audible) ... instead of just dirt, which was in the plan. Now its sidewalk
and everything else that is getting dumped back there. Do you see how incredibly
discouraging this is? We were told ... we went through the process. You were told what
great neighbors they were going to be. What great neighbors they were going to be.
Chairperson Wilcox — I allowed you to come up here and ask a procedure question.
Mr. Byrne — You said I could speak.
Chairperson Wilcox — And you asked if you could ask a procedural question. This is not
your opportunity to revisit the past.
Mr. Byrne — I'm not.
Chairperson Wilcox — If there is a problem with the site and you want to report that,
code enforcement, we have no enforcement. This board does not enforce the
resolutions that we pass. If there are issues with the buffer that were mentioned or the
lighting or other things going on at the site that are contrary to what was approved,
please talk to the enforcement office. They will help you out.
Ms. Brock — Fred, I do think, though, to the extent an applicant's compliance or
no with this board's resolutions are known to neighbors and they are able
to bring that information to the board that might be information the board might want
to consider.
Chairperson Wilcox — That might be information we want to consider when we consider.
I just don't want to give the public a chance right now to...
Ms. Brock — But I think that for future applications...
Chairperson Wilcox — When we hold a public hearing, the public will come back and
they will have the opportunity during the public hearing to express their frustration and
voice their opinion.
Mr. Byrne — Thank you.
42
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Ms. Brock — Also, there is a representative from Overlook that is here right now. You
might just take the opportunity to speak to him directly if you wish. Sometimes direct
conversations actually yield good results.
Mr. Byrne — Can I respond to that?
Board Member Talty - Why not?
Ms. Brock — I opened the door.
Mr. Byrne — Because they are not the problem. It is clear, they're not ... it's the builder.
They don't have any control over the builder or the owner, who is our great neighbor.
Ms. Brock — But I think there is somebody here who does interact with the builder.
Mr. Byrne — I'm sure that it wa,
morning or dumping that stuff in
owner, who was promised to be a
great a neighbor they were going
just hope that next time you take
saying what the heck did we do.
;n't their decision to be starting out at 4:30 in the
my backyard. I think that it is the builder and the
great neighbor. Over and over and over again. How
to be and how much they were going to do for us. I
a good look at this and not be looking at it now and
Board Member Talty — I'm ready. You opened the door, Fred.
Ms. Brock- No, I opened the door.
Chairperson Wilcox — She opened the door.
Board Member Thayer — Let's hear what he has to say.
Stacey Whitney, 200 Overlook Circle
My name is Stacey Whitney. I am the... Domain Company is the Overlook at West Hill.
Chairperson Wilcox — May I have an address please?
Mr. Whitney — 200 Overlook Circle. I am a neighbor. I am up there everyday. I work
on that job site. I see Jon Kanter. I see Dan Walker. I see Kristie Rice. I see every
code enforcement officer up there. Trust me, if there were a code issue it would be
brought before us and it would be dealt with. There were several on the job that there
were code issues that were dealt with immediately. Jonathan Kanter walked a site
about a month ago and gave us a site plan and said this is what has to be done in order
to get your C of 0. Everything on that list has been done above and beyond what the
Town told us to do. There are no piles of rubbish. There were no sheriff's up there on
43
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
a daily basis telling us that we were up at 4:30 in the morning with hammers and
bulldozers. That was not true. I can tell you that as a person that works there and
with an interest in the Overlook at West Hill and as a neighbor that that did not happen.
There was a sheriff there one time about a guy there at 7 a.m., not 4:30. If you were
out there at 4:30, the lights that we have in place would have been able to show...there
would've been enough lighting there for the guy to work. I assure you. There are no
hammers. There are no bulldozers running at 4 o'clock in the morning. There are
backhoes running at 4 o'clock in the morning. There are not guys on the roof. There
are not guys in the buildings at 4 o'clock in the morning. That's not true. The
sheriff...if there were people there and they did have a case and they did say yes, the
sheriff was there, bring the paperwork forward. Bring the reports forward and we will
deal with it. As the owners, we did not know that and I would be happy to have a
discussion with him after to deal with any issues. I am there on a daily basis. I meet
with everybody on a daily basis. There are no issues.
Chairperson Wilcox — There are issues, the question is...
Mr. Whitney — There are lighting issues. There are no code violations issues that I
know of. Dan would know. Dan's ... you are there. Is there anything?
Mr. Walker — As far as I know, there were code issues, but we got them. straightened
out and the biggest code issue were the fire alarms, I think because the sprinklers that
we required above and beyond the normal building code and it's the type of thing on
any job that there are always going to be some glitches and there were some specs
that were wrong and there were or misunderstood.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get you closer to the microphone, Dan?
Mr. Walker — Any time you have got a contractor, an owner, an architect, 4 or 5
subcontractors, you got confusion at times and those are what the problems were up
there. Usually there were interpretations of the building code that we dealt with the
architects on and then they dealt with their specifications and they worked with the
contractors, but everything has been worked out.
Mr. Whitney — Right. I don't see any open code issues as has been brought before the
board tonight. There are no open code issues. As far as materials being around like
boards and whatever he's saying, rubbish that they can see from their houses, it is
normal construction material. You are up there...
Mr. Walker — The method they used for construction was they prepanelized all the
buildings and they had a huge stack of panels at the upper part of the site for most of
the last 2 years.
.,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
Mr. Whitney — Which are gone now and the upper site is clean. I mean there are a few
piles of debris, but it is not ... I just wanted to ... from the developer's standpoint I think
the site is impeccable. I don't see rubbish lying around and I definitely, from the
owner's or from the developer's side did not hear of any ... the sheriff being there 5 or 6
times a day. That never happened. If it did, we would have heard about it and dealt
with it directly. Again, I have been there for the past 2 years everyday. Met with code
enforcement. Kristie Rice is up there almost every day. If there was an issue like that
it would have been brought before us and after 5 times I am sure that the sheriff would
have wrote a ticket because he wouldn't drive up there for nothing.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure we need to go any further with this at this point. It
serves no useful purpose and I'm sure it will come back again when it comes back to
this board and we open the public hearing.
Mr. Whitney — I can speak for the owner on this light, we are talking $200 for the
community center. We will put them on as a courtesy to the neighbors on the
community center and if they are changed when we come back before the Planning
Board, we will change them. That is not an issue. As a courtesy, we will do that to
make everybody happy tonight. Then if we have to change them in the future we'll do
that again.
Board Member Mitrano — It's not a courtesy. It's a compliance.
Mr. Whitney— Compliance, but if they are blinding people...
Mr. Kanter — Lets say as a good faith effort.
Board Member Thayer - Would you let us know when they are on so we .can look at
them?
Mr. Whitney — My planned was if they were approved, to go to Syracuse tomorrow and
pick them up. I will do that tomorrow morning, pick them up and replace them
tomorrow if they are readily available.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are we done for tonight?
Board Member Mitrano — Yes, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll all come back again. So we expect a revised application at
your earliest possibility. Thank you.
Ed lei
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Wilcox moves the minutes and Board Member Conneman seconds.
Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask a question?
Chairperson Wilcox — Now that we've moved and seconded, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you and that
others present listed on the first page, but the tw
them that was omitted.
Ms. Whitmore — I'll bring it to her attention.
Board Member Hoffmann I like that.
Board Member Thayer — Good question.
is we have always in the past had
o times when the other secretary did
Board Member Hoffmann — I want to have it there and I mean we can decide to say we
want it there.
Chairperson Wilcox — We want it there.
Board Member Thayer — We want it there.
Ms. Whitmore - Thank you, Eva. I did not realize that.
Board votes on motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -110: Approval of Minutes: October 17, 2006
MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve
2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca
meeting as presented with corrections
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
A YES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer and Talty.
NA YS: None.
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann.
and adopts the October 17,
Planning Board for the said
Ed no
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Approved November 21, 2006
The vote on the motion was carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview for the November 21, 2006 Planning Board
meetings. The board discussed the agenda.
The board further discussed. the Overlook application and the status of. the Rite Aid
application. Ms.. Brock gave the board an update on the local law allowing alternate
board members on the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the November 7, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 9:01
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�
Carrie Coates Whi more
Deputy Town Clerk
CYA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Halkiopoulos 2 -Lot Subdivision, 155 & 155.5 Westview Lane.
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and
modification of the original 1986 Grandview Subdivision approval for the proposed 2 -lot
subdivision located at 155 & 155.5 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58 -2-
39.54, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/-
19,795 square foot property into two lots where each unit of the existing duplex will be
on an individual lot. This proposal will also require a modification of the original 1986
Grandview Subdivision approval which restricted this lot (Lot No, 36) to a single owner
duplex. Matoula & Greg Halkiopoulos, Owners /Applicants,
7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Overlook at West Hill Light Fixtures, West Hill Circle,
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for a
modification to the Overlook at West Hill development located off Trumansburg Road on
West Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -4 -14.23 and 24 -4- 14.24, Multiple
Residence Zone. The modification includes permitting the installed wall mounted light
fixtures at all exterior doorways and porches to remain. The installed light fixtures are
decorative in nature, but do not conform with the site plan approved by the Planning
Board on April 20, 2004 (PB Resolution No. 2004 -032), which included shielded, full
cutoff light fixtures to prevent unnecessary glare and light spillage. The installed lights
are standard wall pack lights that are not shielded. Overlook at West Hill, LP, Owner;
David Brewster, Agent.
6. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
71 Approval of Minutes: October 17, 2006,
8. Other Business:
9, Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17470
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, November 7, 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, November 7, 2006, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval and modification of the
original 1986 Grandview Subdivision approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located
at 155 & 155.5 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 58 -2- 39.54, Medium
Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 19,795 square foot
property into two lots where each unit of the existing duplex will be on an individual lot.
This proposal will also require a modification of the original 1986 Grandview
Subdivision approval which restricted this lot (Lot No. 36) to a single owner duplex.
Matoula & Greg Halkiopoulos, Owners /Applicants.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for a modification to the
Overlook at West Hill development located off Trumansburg Road on West Hill Circle,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -4 -14.23 and 24 -4- 14.24, Multiple Residence Zone.
The modification includes permitting the installed wall mounted light fixtures at all
exterior doorways and porches to remain. The installed light fixtures are decorative in
nature, but do not conform with the site plan approved by the Planning Board on April
20, 2004 (PB Resolution No. 2004 -032), which included shielded, full cutoff light
fixtures to prevent unnecessary glare and light spillage. The installed lights are standard
wall pack lights that are not shielded. Overlook at West Hill, LP, Owner; David
Brewster, 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, October 30, 2006
Publish: Wednesday, November 1, 2006
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SI&WIN SHEET
DATE: November 7, 2006
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
LE-c -H
L vCJi�'
f LIZ -�S�/I l� l,k/
200 00i .ZQ0ul-e
V ✓'
Of
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 Tiog_a Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, November 7, 2006
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per - attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ate.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
October 30, 2006
November 1, 2006
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF. NEW YORK) . SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1St day of November 2006.
c--
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 0 6�