The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2007-07-17FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox III Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann, Rod Howe, Larry Thayer, and Susan Riha. STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Creig Hebdon, Assistant Town Engineer; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS PRESENT: David Brewster, 1917 Slaterville Road Jutta lacovelli, 216 Pennsylvania Ave. Jim Herrick, 236 Pennsylvania Ave. Rich DePaulo, 126 Northview Road Joe lacovelli, 216 Pennsylvania Ave Robert Blakeney, Cornell University Al Gantert, Cornell University David Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, Syracuse Marie Goeritz, 118 Schuyler Place, Apartment 2 David Romm, 1006 East Shore Drive Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way Dan Mitchell, 606 Elmira Road Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It is 7:03 and I will hereby call the Tuesday, July 17th meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to order. wish to point out to those of you in attendance this evening there are two fire exits in this room. There is the door to my right, that I am currently pointing to, that is the door through which you entered. Then there is a second fire entrance to the left, which I am now pointing to. I hereby accept the secretary's affidavit of the posting and the publication of the five public hearings that are scheduled for this evening. Welcome everybody. We all set? Board Member Thayer — I think we are. Persons to be Heard Chairperson Wilcox — All righty. At 7:04, the first agenda item is persons to be heard. If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, an item, topic, or concern which is not on this evening's agenda, I will give you the opportunity to step to the microphone. Give us your name and PB 7/17/07 Pg. 2 address, and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. If you are here for one of the five scheduled public hearings, we will give you a chance to speak at the appropriate time when we deal with that particular agenda item. There being no one, we'll move on to the next item at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox reads the agenda item. SEQR Determination Jehovah's Witnesses Site and Building Renovations, 1201 Danby Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Who is representing? Sir? The man with the tie Mr. Brewster — Would you like me to step forward? Chairperson Wilcox — I want you to step right up to that record you and so that we can amplify you for the Absolutely. Name and address, please. David Brewster, 1917 Slaterville Road Okay. David Brewster and I reside at 1917 Slaterville Road, Ithaca, New York. microphone so that we can members of the audience. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a short presentation or not? Mr. Brewster = A short presentation. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Brewster — Okay. Actually, what this is, what we're are coming before the Planning Board just to do some exterior and interior renovations and upgrades to the siding, which is 30 years old and to bring the building so that it is more accessible, well, user friendly for those with accessibility issues, such as the canopy that only has a clearance of 8 feet. That doesn't allows many accessible vans to drop off passengers under cover in inclement weather. So we are requesting to upgrade the asphalt parking lot that is shown and regrade so that there is. positive drainage away from the building along with upgrades to the toilet rooms, which will allow accessible use of the toilet facilities for the men's and women's room and will meet ADA requirements. Then just a general, you might say, an interior and exterior spruce up. There was also just prior to the meeting, or maybe prior to the meeting, there was a sign that was submitted, a freestanding sign, as well as a rough draft for a landscape plan. Because there is not a lot, of landscaping there so we would like to improve the landscaping. Also with the landscaping also shield some of the headlights that drive into the parking lot at night. Chairperson Wilcox — Any environmental issues that you are aware of? Mr. Brewster — No. It's actually ... the use will stay the same. The parking lot will stay the same. The drainage now drains, it has a positive drainage into a wide grass area, .. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 3 which filters out much... the ... if...much if any of the debris that is generated out in the parking lot. So it acts as a very nice biofiltration swale. Chairperson Wilcox — I should also point out that the plan is to eliminate one of the entrances. Mr. Brewster —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — So that there is only one entrance with two -way traffic rather than separate entrances. Mr. Brewster - Yes. We were thinking that it would move the egress further away from State Route 96B, Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Hi, Joel. Questions with regard to environmental review? Yes, Susan? Board Member Riha — Will there be an increase in impervious surfaces that driveway...? Mr. Brewster — No. It's going to be the exact same. Board Member Riha — So the driveway to the ... to, what would it be? The north? No. It would be the east, I guess of the existing structure. Would that be widened then? Mr. Brewster — That would be widened to the same width as the one that is being moved to the west on the west side of the site. Board Member Riha — And I noticed right now that the parking lot ... I mean from the point of view of impervious surfaces that parking lot is good because it has a lot of holes. Mr. Brewster — It has a lot of holes. So it's very pervious. Board Member — Riha - ...impervious surfaces mean the potential for more surface runoff. I'm just wondering if you considered having a stone parking lot at all because... Mr. Brewster — It hasn't, but it also creates some issues such as wintertime maintenance and then the wintertime maintenance leads into summer maintenance because whatever the plow is pushing to the landscape area then the lawn mowers will hurl that much further out into State Route 96B. So there might be some motorist that would prefer not to have rocks... Board Member Riha — But you are not planning to increase the size of the parking lot or...? PB 7/17/07 Pg. 4 Mr. Brewster — No. Right now what they are, in fact actually, if you look on the drawing C1.1, you can see that this is the proposed. There is an existing gravel overflow parking and right now there is actually two gravel overflowing snow storage...or proposed areas. The one to the east that is in existence right now. That is already gravel. It has been. Then the asphalt starts right there, you might say right in line with the parking. So there is just that little out propping. They would like to, for ease of maintenance, wintertime maintenance, if they have the funding available to put that in asphalt if the Planning Board would accept that, but that's just if their funding would allow them. But, as you can see, basically the footprint does not change for impervious surface. The building gets no bigger. The landscape area.will actually grow as far as changing it from lawn to shrub and bushes. Board Member Riha — And then there is, I don't know, Creig, correct me if I'm wrong, there's swales along Compton Road. Is that the idea? Mr. Kanter — Yeah. There's drainage swale. Board Member Riha — But not along Route 96B. Mr. Kanter —There I s one there, too. Board Member Riha — There's one there, too. So it can... Mr. Hebdon — It's all open ditch water. Board Member Thayer — Are you adding outdoor lighting at all? Mr. Brewster — Yes. In fact, actually, if you'll look at C3.1, there is some ... there are six proposed sight lighting, pole lights and those proposed lights, there is a cut sheet that has been supplied to you at the back of the documents that actually details what those will be like and they do meet the Town requirements for just being down lights only. Board Member Thayer — Right. That was my question. Board Member Howe — So that's ... are you taking down any old lights? What's the net gain of...? Mr. Brewster — We are taking down the one whole light that is right in the center that doesn't meet the standards right now, but has been in existence for many years. That is right in the center of the parking lot. That is the only parking lot light that they have right now. It's about a 175 -watt metal halide light that just shines out and down. Board Member Riha — Just following up on that, Larry, I mean when we went out there I mean there is a house on the south side there, right? Not that far away. So I'm wondering how putting more lights is going to impact...? PB 7/17/07 Pg. 5 Mr. Brewster — Well, actually if you look ... right now there is a row of trees along that, but the landscape drawing that was submitted right at the end ... we have proposed some bushes. So the only down lights ... these parking lot lights will have a pole of 16 feet. So it will only be about 17 feet off the ground and then they will just shine directly down, but then any cars that park there... Board Member Riha —Their headlights will be... Mr. Brewster — In the bushes. Board Member Riha — That would be nice. Mr. Brewster — It will at least buffer the neighbors. Chairperson Wilcox — More so than they are today. Mr. Brewster —Yes. Mr. Kanter — And just on that note, David, I would assume that the parking lot lights would be turned off after events are over. Mr. Brewster — They would be on a timer. Actually, they would only be on the nights in which there are events being held. So it wouldn't be every night of the week. Chairperson Wilcox — Creig, any comments? Mr. Hebdon — Not at this point. Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan, anything else you want to...? Mr. Kanter — Just I noted on the new drawing that David submitted, the new C2.1 that shows the freestanding sign, it's a slightly different location than one of the drawings that was originally submitted. The original C3.1, which is a different map, but it actually showed the sign location. The sign locations are not the same so I think we would just require correct location of the sign be submitted as a condition of the site plan approval. Chairperson Wilcox — When and if we get to it, Susan, one of the things I was thinking was we have the original C1 and C2 dated February 1, 2006 and now we have in front of us revised, augmented C1.1 and C2.1 still dated the same, but stamped as July 16tH We just need to take that into account in the resolutions as drafted so that we note the ... and also obviously the sheet that we were given for the proposed sign should also be referenced. Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEAR. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 6 Board Member Hoffmann — I have a couple of.questions first. Chairperson Wilcox — Want to take it back? Board Member Thayer — Nope. Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Eva, go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — This can be part of the discussion. I wanted to ask you, in that new sheet we got tonight called C1.1, you have added the existing gravel overflow parking to the east and you have added the note that that might possibly be asphalt as well as for the new one, the planned one. Is there anything else that has changed on this plan from the previous one? Mr. Brewster — No. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Brewster — And that's just to clarify, that's if the funding is available. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. And it's also if we approve it. I have a feeling that based on what Susan said, we might prefer less asphalt rather than more. and I would agree with what she said actually and because these extended gravel, they are overflow areas and so they are likely to, unless they are to...unless you have a-really big event there likely to be used for putting snow from plowing the asphalt instead of being plowed themselves. Mr. Brewster —Yes, Board Member Hoffmann — Right? So I think it would be better to .have them in gravel and also because they are limited, I have this problem myself. I understand what the winter and summer maintenance of gravel driveway is like, but because you have it in limited areas you can make sure that the person who plows pushes it out to the grass extending just beyond that so you don't get it all over the place. I also wanted to ask you about the planting plan. Is there a reason you want the low growing bushes to the south of the possible gravel overflow area to the south of the parking lot to be a maximum height of 28 inches only? Mr. Brewster — Only because we were trying to actually just utilize them to block the headlights and not be more of a natural fence to make it seem like there was less of a wall to make it more open. Because right now there is only a row of trees there and if the Planning Board would like them to be taller that wouldn't be a problem, but that was mainly the reason why the height was specified. Board Member Hoffmann — Are you talking about replacing trees with shrubs? PB 7/17/07 Pg. 7 Mr. Brewster — No. These would be adding to it. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Kanter — Yeah. That is all lawn over there. Board Member Hoffmann — And I see you have some proposed plantings to the north, but to the west toward Danby Road you really don't have much planting and as I remember that is fairly open there. Mr. Brewster - It is and we would like to remain, well, that is also where the sign goes. So we would like to not impede the view of the sign, okay, because of people that are traveling down 96. They are going the mandated speed of 55 so to see the sign, we would like to give them as much advance notice as possible. Board Member Hoffmann — Correct. Mr. Brewster — That is the only reason why we didn't put any out on the west side. Board Member Hoffmann — Now on the older plans, the sign was located more in the center of the fagade toward Danby Road, but closer to the road. Mr. Brewster — We could still utilize that space. Board Member Hoffmann — But now it looks like you haven't really indicated there is a sign on this new plan you gave us called C2.1. It's just, it looks like some ,shrubbery over there. Mr. Brewster — That is just a proposed, very possibly where it could go. We would actually like it as centered as possible, such as the existing, the original C.31 showed, which is right in the middle of the hall. We're not ... we are in agreement that it could actually be right in that location. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but if you were to put it in any one of those locations, if you were to put more plants on the ... along the western side where the old driveway... where the current driveway is, that wouldn't block a sign from the road, but it would add some nice greenery. Mr. Brewster — You are correct. In fact, actually if you look at that plan also, it showed some flowering trees there going up Compton Road, toward the east on Compton Road. There is an existing septic field there. So those trees would actually probably have to be relocated so as not to damage the field to that driveway fulfilling where that driveway is. So quite likely that's where or else we would have to add some additional trees or change it. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 8 Board Member Hoffmann — So where it says, "possible flowering trees" that is not possible because of the... Mr. Brewster — That is not possible because of the septic system. The septic system does not allow enough root space or growing space between the septic system and the natural ditch line for the Town road. Board Member Hoffmann — And I see you have an alternative location for the flowering trees indicated, which I think is fine, but I would like to see some more plantings filling in the space between that alternative location and the shrubbery along the overflow parking on the southern end of that edge because that is completely open. You say you have a relocated Dogwood tree close to the building, but that is it. Board Member Riha — So the idea is you don't just see the parking lot from the road. Mr. Brewster — Yeah. Right now in that corner there is a fairly large willow tree that is not noted. Actually, those dots on C3.1 are actually trees. The one that is in the, you might say the southwestern corner, is a very large willow tree. And actually there are quite mature trees as you go up that property line, the southern property line and. also along the eastern property line there are some good sized spruce trees. that are up along that that act as a buffer right now. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I would like to see as many trees that are there already saved. Mr. Brewster — Oh, we wouldn't be taking any trees down. That is not the plan. Board Member Hoffmann — But then adding other things like maybe lower growing shrubs and medium sized shrubs so that you get a variety so it looks like a natural landscape rather than a row of equal sized things that look very planted and you could do the same along the southern boundary of the parking lot, too. It doesn't all have to be little bushes that get maximum 28 inches in height. It could be a variety of shrubs as long as they don't interfere with the use you want to have there. Mr. Brewster — We were adding those purely for the neighbor's benefit. Board Member Hoffmann — And that is a good idea. Mr. Brewster — So that is completely plausible. Mr. Kanter — So when we get to the conditions... Chairperson Wilcox — When we get to site plan... Mr. Kanter — I think my, somewhat of an worded condition c, when we get to it, tak exactly what we were talking about because Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. environmental issue, I suppose, .e a look at that and see if that I think it might, Chairperson Wilcox — George, I think you had a... Board Member Conneman —(not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox — Are you all set, Eva? PB 7/17/07 Pg. 9 the way I might say Board Member Hoffmann — Do we need to talk about the sign? The size and such of it? Is there any problem with the sign? Mr. Kanter — We can talk about that at site plan. I think we'll need something a little bit more detailed with the exact configuration and color. Chairperson Wilcox — Any.other questions with regard to environmental review? Larry? Board Member Thayer —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — You want to move the motion? Board Member Thayer — I will move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved. The SEQR motion, ladies and gentlemen. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? Susan, we need to make just a couple of changes. Ms. Brock — Right. In the third whereas, the reference to drawings titled C1.1 Site Plan, 2.106 add, "and date stamped July 16, 2007 ". Same addition needs to be made to the reference drawing C2.1 Grading Plan, which is shown being dated 2/1/06 and add in the parenthetical, "and date stamped July 16, 2007 ". Chairperson Wilcox — Do we want to reference the page with the sign as well? Ms. Brock — Sure. After the reference to the lighting details, where it says two sheets date stamped 6/25/07 add, "and sign details on sheet titled... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 10 Chairperson Wilcox - `proposed freestanding sign for Planning Board approval', date stamped July 16, 2007". Ms. Brock — Yup. Board Member Riha — One more quick ... I noticed this before on the form. People check zero to five years, but I think they mean acres. You know, on the short environmental assessment form. Instead of putting in the number of acres, but I'm assuming... what's the total acreage? Mr. Brewster — The total acreage is just under two acres. Board Member Riha — Under two acres. Okay. So two acres there. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, in fact, let me just come over here and put in the two. Larry, George, are the changes acceptable? Board Member Thayer and Board Member Conneman — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? Any abstentions? There are none. The motion is passed unanimously. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 068 SEAR Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Site Modifications 1201 Danby Road Tax Parcel No. 36 -3 -1.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 17, 2007 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed site and building renovations at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses located at 1201 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 3 -1.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing one driveway, installing new asphalt on the existing driveway and parking area, improving drainage, installing new outdoor lighting, raising the existing canopy structure approximately 2 feet, windows, and several interior modifications. Ithaca Witnesses, Owner /Applicant; David Brewster, Agent, PB 7/17/07 Pg. 11 installing new siding and Congregation of Jehovah's and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled C1.1 Site Plan (2/1/06) and date stamped July 16, 2007, A2.1D Demolition Plan (1/5/06), A2.1 Floor Plan (1/5/06), A3.1 Exterior Elevations Front and Right Sides (1/5/06), A3.2 Exterior Elevations Rear and Left Sides (1/5/06), A7.1 Enlarged Plan Toilet Rooms (10/1/05), C2.1 Grading Plan (2/1/06) and date stamped July 16, 2007, C3.1 Drainage and Utilities Plan (2/1/06), Silt Fence Details (superimposed on C1.1, date stamped 6/25/07), all prepared by Wayne A. Folts, Registered Architect; and lighting details (by Rudd Lighting — two sheets date stamped 6/25/07), and sign details on sheet titled "Proposed free - standing sign for Planning Board approval, date stamped July 16, 2007 and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. At 7:25 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox reads the following public hearing notice: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit PB 7/17/07 Pg. 12 for the proposed site and building renovations at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses located at 1201 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 3 -1.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing one driveway, installing new asphalt on the existing driveway and parking area, improving drainage, installing new outdoor lighting, raising the existing canopy structure approximately 2 feet, installing new siding and windows, and several interior modifications. Ithaca Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Owner /Applicant; David Brewster, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the site plan, including . the sign, possibly? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I thought I saw, I keep looking through the papers. thought I saw this was the one which showed, oh, yes, here it is. What is this plan called? It is the one about the lighting and it shows the amount of light all over the parking lot. It looks like this. In the upper right hand corner, it shows the light column . with the fixture on top and it shows one, which has an adjustable fitter so that the light fixture can be tilted. I was wondering about that. Are you planning to have the light fixture where it can be tilted? Mr. Brewster — No. It is the direct one. The one that is to the left. of that. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Brewster — Because the one that is adjustable does not need to meet the lighting code, the outdoor lighting code. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Mr. Brewster - I said the adjustable light fixture doesn't meet the full criteria of being a cutoff fixture whereas the one that is a direct down light does meet it. That is why the only information that was submitted was for the down light. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So this adjustable fitted light should probably. be eliminated on the final plans that you bring in. Mr. Brewster — Uh -huh. It can be. Board Member Hoffmann — So there is no confusion about that. Board Member Howe — Just clarification about the sign. The sign is not lighted, is that correct? Mr. Brewster — Actually, it was not going to be lighted. It was just going to be a freestanding sign. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 13 Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan, you would like and I think ... it would be nice to have it now, but we would get additional details on the proposed sign? Mr. Kanter - Yeah. I would basically keep condition d basically as it is with ... I mean we could reference the drawings, but we are still going to need the detail, you know, the more detail details. Chairperson Wilcox — Materials. Color. All right. Any other questions with regard to the site plan, ladies and gentlemen? All right. You may have a .seat and we'll give the public a chance to address us. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing this evening. If you have a concern or wish to voice our opinion about a particular agenda item, we invite you to the microphone. We ask that you give us your name and address and we surely will be most interested to hear what you have to say this evening. There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:30 and bring the matter back to the board. All right. Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Howe — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe. Do I have a second? Board Member Riha — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded. Thank you very much. Susan? Ms. Brock — Okay. Same changes that we made on the SEQR resolution. So the third whereas clause in the reference to the drawing title C1.1 site plan add after 2/1/06 "and dated stamped July 16th, 2007 ". Same addition about date stamped July 16, 2007 after the reference to sheet C2.1 grading plan 2/1/06. Add after the reference to the lighting details the following language, "and sign details on a sheet titled 'proposed freestanding sign for Planning Board approval' date stamped 7/16/06 . The same changes are made under the resolved clause number 2, to sheet ... to the references to sheet C1.1, sheet 2.1 and then the addition to ... of the reference to the sign details. Add a new condition e to paragraph 2 stating, "submission of a revised lighting details sheet eliminating the lighting pole with an adjustable fitter". C ... on condition c, do we want to have a reference to not only proposed plantings in the landscaping plan, but also to retained plantings? There was some discussion about that on the Board so I just need to know what you want. Chairperson Wilcox — I think there is a commitment on the part to retain the existing plantings. Yes. Ms. Brock — So just add after the proposed "and retained plantings". 1 think condition e is still appropriate even though we do have the sheet showing some of the sign detailed. Apparently we will need more. So I think we can leave this, make a few modifications. Submission of details of the proposed sign, and this is now new language too, whose location is shown on the drawing titled "C2.1 grading plan (2/1/06), date stamped PB 7/17/07 Pg. 14 7/16/07". And I see at the end of this condition it says such sign to comply with all the standards in Chapter 221 signs, in the Town of Ithaca Code. Do we want to say or ... and make some provision to further the fact that they could apply for a variance if it doesn't or do you just want to leave it that it has to comply? Chairperson Wilcox — I haven't consider a recommendation or variance. Are you comfortable regulations in the Town? Mr. Brewster —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. heard anything this evening as to why we would even not...discussion of and possible recommendation of a with the language? The sign will fit the current sign Ms. Brock — Okay. So just leave that. And I guess just change the reference to signs in the second to last line to the singular because they are only proposing one. And I think that is all I have. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Board Member Hoffmann — What about the suggestion of leaving the over, what do they call it, the overflow parking areas in gravel rather than asphalting? Chairperson Wilcox — That is what is stated on the plans. The plans indicate...(not audible... several talking at once). Board Member Hoffmann — It says possible asphalt on the one we got tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — What you didn't realize, unfortunately, is that the plans become what we hold you to and things like possible become a problem. Mr. Brewster —And that is why I moved back up to the... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I appreciate that. Thank you. Board Member Riha — Can we refer to the older plan? Board Member Hoffmann — That was the only change on the one we got tonight. Mr. Kanter — Just put it as a condition that the overflow parking area shall be gravel as shown on whatever that plan was. Board Member Hoffmann — Except the ... oh, no. That is the existing gravel overflow parking. Okay. I don't think that was shown on the original plan. I think that was added. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 15 Chairperson Wilcox — So condition that overflow parking areas to the east and south shall remain gravel. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Does that work, Susan? For you? Ms. Brock -Yes, Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. All right. Jonathan, any changes from you? Mr. Kanter — Not that I think of. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan and Rod, are those changes acceptable? Board Member Howe and Board Member Riha indicate they are acceptable Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? Anything you want to add at this point? Yes, sir? Mr. Brewster — The sign. There is actually two signs that do fall within the Town requirements of being 24 square feet. The sign that is there that has been submitted, the freestanding sign. That actually is only 18 square feet. There is an on- building sign that is existing now that gives meeting times and events that will take up the remainder of that 6 square feet that is mounted to the building. Chairperson Wilcox — I appreciate you coming up. What is the size of this sign under our sign law? Mr. Kanter — Well, that is why we needed detail because this is a little hard to tell. It looks like it is roughly 3 by 6, but there are spaces between posts and depending on how they are actually configured it could be more than 18. And of course David had mentioned to me the other sign that is on the building, which would be a wall sign, but we don't have any details on that, which is why we probably go back to the condition that said submission of details of any signs, any existing or proposed signs. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. To ensure that they are all... Mr. Kanter — And again the key to keep it consistent with the sign law requirements is that the total of the two signs is not to exceed 24 square feet. Mr. Brewster— I just wanted to make sure that... because when you put in there sign... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Yeah. Because we were just looking at this one. We are going to change the language back to refer to signs. Both the new proposed one and the existing one that is on the building. Thank you very much. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 16 Mr. Brewster — According to the Town code for signage, the 24 feet does not include the post. It's just the sign. Mr. Kanter — Except it depends on how it is attached to the posts. Chairperson Wilcox — You may look at this and say this is roughly a 6 by 3 foot or 18 square foot sign, but I looked at it and said is this 36 square feet or 18 square feet because of the unusual way, difficult way ... it's difficult to ... with the, various ways in which signs can be designed and hung on posts or attached to posts, it leads to very interesting and creative ways of measuring the size of them because we don't want people sticking small rectangular signs on very large, ornate posts and structures so it may appear as a small sign, but the visual impact is one of a very much larger sign because of the structure that is holding it. Yeah. So... Mr. Kanter — So actually if the posts are on the side of the sign, they are factored into the area of the sign. So the width of the post is counted. If the posts are. behind the sign, then they are counted not as part of the sign area, but as supports. So...(not audible) ... on decorative appendages that's the interpretation that has come about. with that. We are addressing that in the sign law at some point, but,.. Board Member Thayer —.So as pictured it adds 8 more inches to width. Chairperson Wilcox — On the other hand the sign itself, given the curve nature at the top, is not a full 18 square feet. Board Member Thayer — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, then you use the rectangle ... so we will leave the language the way it is to submit the ... we'll change it to plural. I have a motion and a second. I can't remember where I am. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor please... George, go ahead. Board Member Conneman — No. That's okay. Chairperson Wilcox — All those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? Are there any abstentions? There are none. The motion is passed. Thank you very much. Now you can leave. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 = 069 Preliminary and Final Site Plan & Special Permit Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Site Modifications PB 7/17/07 Pg. 17 1201 Danby Road Tax Parcel No. 36 -3 -1.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 17, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed site and building renovations at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses located at 1201 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 3 -1.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing one driveway, installing new asphalt on the existing driveway and parking area, improving drainage, installing new outdoor lighting,. raising the existing canopy structure approximately 2 feet, installing new siding and windows, and several interior modifications. Ithaca, Congregation of..Jehovah's Witnesses, Owner /Applicant; David Brewster, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit has, on July 17, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 17 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled C1.1 Site Plan (2/1/06) and date stamped July 16, 2007, A2.1 D Demolition Plan (1/5/06), A2.1 Floor Plan (1/5/06), A3.1 Exterior Elevations Front and Right Sides (1/5/06), A3.2 Exterior Elevations Rear and Left Sides (1/5/06), A7.1 Enlarged Plan Toilet Rooms .(10/1/05), C2.1 Grading Plan (2/1/06) and date stamped July 16, 20079 C3.1 Drainage and Utilities Plan (2/1/06), Silt Fence Details (superimposed on C1.1, date stamped 6/25/07), all prepared by Wayne A. Folts, Registered Architect; and lighting details (by Rudd Lighting — two sheets date stamped 6/25/07), and sign details on sheet titled "Proposed free - standing sign for Planning Board approval, date stamped July 16, 2007 and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed site and building renovations at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses site as described above, finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been meet, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: PB 7/17/07 Pg. 18 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site and building renovations at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses site as described above, as shown on drawings titled C1.1 Site Plan (2/1/06) and date stamped July 16, 2007, A2.1 D Demolition Plan (1/5/06), A2.1 Floor Plan (1/5/06), A3.1 Exterior Elevations Front and Right Sides (1/5/06), A3.2 Exterior Elevations Rear and Left Sides (1/5/06), A7.1 Enlarged Plan Toilet Rooms (10/1/05), C2.1 Grading Plan (2/1/06) and date stamped July 161 20071 C3.1 Drainage and Utilities Plan (2/1/06), Silt Fence Details (superimposed on C1.1, date stamped 6/25/07), all prepared by Wayne A. Folts, Registered Architect; and lighting details (by Rudd Lighting - two sheets date stamped 6/25/07) and sign details on sheet titled "Proposed free - standing sign for Planning Board approval, date stamped July 16, 2007, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor(s), engineer(s), architect(s), or landscape architect(s) who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town; and b. Submission of copies of all necessary permits or approvals from the Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent for modification of the existing curb -cuts on Compton Road and from the New York State Department of Transportation for modification of drainage into the State highway drainage ditch, prior to issuance of any building permits; and C. Submission of a landscaping plan for review and approval of the Director of Planning indicating locations, species and size of proposed and retained plantings, in particular showing a mixture of trees and shrubs on the west side of the site in the area of the removed driveway where re- grading will occur and along the western edge of the parking area, prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy; and d. Submission of details of any proposed signs, whose location is shown on the drawing titled C2.1 Grading Plan (2 -1 -06, date stamped 7- 16 -07) for review and approval of the Director of Planning prior to installation of such signs or prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy, whichever is earlier, and such signs to comply with all of the standards in Chapter 221 Signs in the Town of Ithaca Code. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 19 e. Submission of a revised lighting detail sheet eliminating the lighting pole with an adjustable fitter, and f. That overflow parking areas to the east and south shall remain gravel. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — We are behind schedule, aren't we. Board Member Thayer — Catch us up quickly. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. We'll see what we can do. Okay. At 7:39 ladies and gentlemen, the next item this evening is: SEAR Determination lacovelli 2 -Lot Subdivision, 240 Pennsylvania Avenue Chairperson Wilcox — Whoever is going to speak, please put the microphone in front of them. Larry, it is good to see you. Name and address, please. Professional address always works. Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way, Ithaca Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way, Ithaca, New York. and existing cottage on this site and subdivide it into each 75 feet wide and slightly different depth dimer things that are up in the old Ithaca land tract. So cottage is about 85 years old and it's not insulated keep up any more. This proposal here is to demolish two current zoning compliant lots, isions because of all the odd ball it's pretty straight forward. The well and not really economical to Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to environmental review of this proposed subdivision? Board Member Thayer — Nope. I'm all set. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed in the short environmental assessment form, point 10, I'ts just marked residential land use in the vicinity, but I sense the South Hill Recreation Way is right adjacent. I think one should mark park, forest, open space, too. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 20 Chairperson Wilcox — Is Therm close enough to mark industrial? Yeah ...it's a tough call. Board Member Hoffmann — But certainly the South Hill Recreation Way. Chairperson Wilcox — While we are at it, I would like to make another change to the short environmental form under 5, describe the project briefly. The project before us is not to build two duplexes. The project before us is to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots. You can do it. I'll just initial it after you make the change. Any further discussion with regard to environmental review? Board Member Howe — I'll move the SEQR. Chairperson Wilcox — Rod will move the SEQR motion. Seconded by Larry. There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. The motion has passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION 2007 = 070 SEQR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval lacovelli 2 -Lot Subdivision 240 Pennsylvania Avenue Tax Parcel No. 544-17 Town of Ithaca Planning Board July 17, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -17 into two lots located at 240 Pennsylvania Avenue, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the existing lot (totaling +/= 18,625 square feet) into two new building lots (Lot 1 to consist of +/- 9,334 square feet and Lot 2 to consist of +/- 9,291 square feet) for the purpose of constructing new two - family dwellings on each lot. The existing house and garage will be demolished. Ralph lacovelli; Owner; Orlando lacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and PB 7/17/07 Pg. 21 3, The Planning Board on July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat of 240 Pennsylvania Avenue" prepared by L. Fabbroni, US, dated November 22, 1992 and revised June 12, 2007, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part 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, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. At 7:41 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox reads the following public hearing notice: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 =7 -17 into two lots located at 240 Pennsylvania Avenue, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the existing lot (totaling +/= 18,625 square feet) into two new building lots (Lot 1 to consist of +/= 9,334 square feet and Lot 2 to consist of +/= 9,291 square feet) for the construction of two new two- family houses. The existing house and garage will be demolished. Ralph lacovelli, Owner; Orlando lacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed? Okay. I want to make a comment, if I may. I hope, I'm looking at the applicant, not the agent. I hope you don't put up those standard, ugly, gray buildings. This Town does not have architectural review and therefore, as much as I hate those buildings and they are proliferating in that section, also on Coddington Road, I wish you would do something different. Change the color. Put some gables on them. Please do something to make those buildings look nicer. I can't force you. Before, I wish you would think of what you are going to leave behind when you pass on and what that neighborhood will look like PB 7/17/07 Pg. 22 rather than presumably, simply trying to build sufficient for the purposes. Add some character. to that neighborhood. I would appreciate it. Board Member Hoffmann — I think this is the area from which residents have come in and complained very often about noise from parties and such because there are so many rundown...(not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox — I will give the public a chance to speak. There is probably at least one person who might want to address... Board Member Hoffmann — You know, there is one thing that I wonder if we did right. You said the purpose is not to build two duplexes, but in fact it says in the resolution, both for the SEQR and for the subdivision approval, it says for the purpose of constructing new 2- family dwellings on each lot as well as to subdivide it. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but what are we approving? What are we approving tonight? We are approving a subdivision. Board Member Hoffmann — I know, but why does it say that in the resolution then? Mr. Kanter — Why do we say anything in any of our descriptions? We are describing what... Chairperson Wilcox — We have that information. It has been voluntarily provided by the applicant and we have that information, but we don't issue a building permit. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I also think that when we know what the purpose of the subdivision is, it's not just a subdivision without any stated purpose. We could take that into consideration. Chairperson Wilcox — Under what jurisdiction? What law or regulation grants us that? That's the question. Board Member Hoffmann — Well ... I'm not saying that we could necessarily do anything about the subdivision because everything seems to be okay. The size is right and the setbacks would permit buildings to be put there, but still, if we ... we are a Planning Board. We are supposed to look at...into the future and what is good planning for the Town of Ithaca and if we see something heading in the direction, which is probably not desirable for a neighborhood, you just stated what you would like to see. , Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but I... Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe we should even if there is not law that backs us up, maybe we should think about and state what we think what could go wrong and ask ... have people think about that. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 23 Chairperson Wilcox — I have. Susan, do you want to add anything or do you want to... Ms. Brock — Eva, the Town Board has set the zoning for the area, and if you feel it's inappropriate, then this Board could ask the Town Board to reconsider the zoning and what's permitted, but, as long as what's being proposed is permissible under the zoning and all those requirements, you really don't have the ability to say you don't like the way things are zoned in this area. Board Member Hoffmann — No, I understand that and it's really not those of us on the Board that should do that. I think it's the neighbors who might come in with a petition saying they would like to have the land rezoned, if that is what they want. Ms. Brock —They certainly have that right. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. I still think that we need to keep in mind what we are doing. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I agree. Board Member Howe — And I think we are, but I can't, I don't think we can go in the direction that you are suggesting. Board Member Hoffmann — No, and I realize that. I think it's okay to do what Fred just did. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I did it, I'm not sure what it will get us. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. Jutta lacovelli, 216 Pennsylvania Ave. I'm here just to voice my opposition to this plan. I do not want to see two new houses added to the neighborhood. It will just increase the population density, it will increase the traffic. It will increase the vandalism and the litter problem that we have from the student parties. Residents in these houses that Mr. lacovelli builds, they're not good neighbors. They're not good about policing their property and keeping it clean. Quite often we see trash and litter on the property. These two new houses that are being proposed, if I understand the regulations correctly, each house is going to allow, at the minimum, six students, which means at least six cars parked on the property or on the street. But that's at a minimum, because we see many more cars parked at these houses than what is legally allowed for people to be living there and my question is, when is enough enough? We have too many houses in that neighborhood already. We have too many people living in that neighborhood already and we don't need anymore. Thank you. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 24 Jim Herrick, 236 Pennsylvania Ave. Right next door to the proposed site. I have the same concerns and not only the architecture, like you pointed out, but the quality of life that I'm gonna have to deal with. Now, I talked to Orlando just before the meeting started and if this does go through, we shook hands on a deal on putting a fence to separate, you know, the two lots. We agreed to that. If it doesn't go through, I'm not going to be unhappy. I, agree with the parties, the kids, the litter, the vandalism, the cars flying up and down a 30mph zone that isn't and can't really be policed as well because it's in the county and that's spread thin and ... I guess that's about what I needed to voice. Rich DePaulo, 126 Northview Road I didn't come down to comment specifically on this but, it is an issue that affects anyone who uses the South Hill Recreation Way. I don't know if this parcel is backed up right to the trail or not, but some of the gray houses that you refer to, a couple havice recently been built adjacent to the trail and my concern is not so much with the land use per significant environmental, but that during the construction. process, almost the entire buffer between the trail and these lots was obliterated and I ... as it stands right now, that constitutes an encroachment of the neighborhood onto the trail proper because there's really no way to separate the aesthetic of the trail from the adjacent neighborhood.. So this goes more to implementation than it does the subdivision, obviously, but, I would like to see some sort of a provision that allows for, that mandates the. maintenance of some sort of suitable buffer between these houses and the trail itself. I haven't seen anything replanted, I haven't seen anything reemerge there that would give me the impression that there's ... that that's a priority at this point, in those houses that have been built. Joe lacovelli, 216 Pennsylvania Ave I find it a little difficult coming in front of the Board, because Orlando is my uncle. I've lived in the neighborhood for 31 years and I've seen the neighborhood go from a nice family oriented neighborhood to college town - Ithaca College and a big majority of the houses are my uncles. Not only Orlando, there's a couple others. It. is very distressful to me to see one house that is going to be torn down and in its place, two more student houses going up. We don't need anymore students in the neighborhood. Recently, the Town has passed a noise ordinance which has made it a little bit more bearable on the weekends but that does not stop all the vandalism, the trespassing, the trash, the public urination, that's been going on ever since the students have moved in. I just hope that you people will reconsider and think about what is going on in our neighborhood. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There being no one, I will close r the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — The question was raised, how many individuals can live in the duplexes. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 25 Ms. Brock — One family can live in each unit and family is defined as two or more. ..I'M sorry two ... Let me read it to you: "Two unrelated persons occupying a single dwelling unit, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit." There are other definitions of family, but if we are thinking of students, that is probably the one that applies. Chairperson Wilcox — Two in each of the units in the duplex. Ms. Brock — Yes, if there were only one building, then you could have one family plus a boarder, so that was probably what they were thinking of when they said six, but, where it's a duplex, one family can be in each unit and family where people are unrelated, too. Board Member Howe — Who follows through with that? Ms. Brock — The code enforcement officer will make the determination if the complaint is made that occupancy is not in compliance with the zoning. And, in fact, that has happened in the past. Board Member Conneman — Will it happen in this case? Will they enforce it? Chairperson Wilcox — Enforce what? Board Member Conneman — Enforce the rule that Susan just said. Mr. Kanter — If there's a complaint. Chairperson Wilcox — If there's a complaint. Ms. Brock — To my knowledge, the Town has always enforced its zoning when the complaints are made and the complaint is found to be valid. Board Member Conneman — And Mr. lacovelli understands that? Ms. Brock — I'm certain he does. Board Member Conneman — Okay. Ms. Brock -- ...because a complaint was made about one of his properties in the past. Board Member Conneman —What do we do about the trash and all the other disruption up there? I mean, I know that the sheriff comes up there and all of that stuff, but there must be something more that we can do about that up there. Ms. Brock — You have a property maintenance law, which, if complaints are made, again, code enforcement officer will go to look to see if in fact that is being violated and I'm aware of instances where that has happened in the recent past, not in this particular PB 7/17/07 Pg. 26 neighborhood, but in other neighborhoods in the Town, and again, if violations are found, the property owner will be cited and directed to clean up the property to meet the standards in the law. Board Member Conneman — And if he doesn't? Or she doesn't? Ms. Brock — Eventually they will get an appearance ticket and be taken to court. Board Member Conneman — And we have the guts to issue an appearance ticket? Ms. Brock — yes. Board Member Conneman = Okay. I just want to be sure. I want it down in the minutes so I can refer to that. Board Member Hoffmann — I can tell you that I personally, when I have seen too many. cars, it's usually at the beginning of the semester, when I see too many cars outside the building in my neighborhood, I have gone to call the code enforcement officer immediately and asked them to check on it. And when they have done it, and they have found that there are too many tenants, there has been results. The tenants' that are there that are too many are asked to find some other housing, or the landlord has to find it for them. But, it really works. I have done it myself. So, I urge all of you who have that sort of problem, to try to do that. Call the Town and ask for the zoning enforcement officer, and they'll help you. When I did it, it was Andy Frost, but I'm sure it's just as good now as it was then. Chairperson Wilcox — We're caught between a rock and a hard place.. Having lived on Juniper Drive for 18 years, I understand the issues that the neighbors are talking about. Unfortunately, this Board does not have the discretion which I think the neighbors wish we had. The Town Board has the discretion. We have in front of us, a proposed subdivision which meets the zoning ordinance. That's the problem. As much as .I am concerned about the density and the type of structure, the area is zoned high density residential with 60 foot wide lots, if I'm not mistaken, instead of 100 or 150 foot wide lots. So the zoning encourages density and with density comes issues and with young kids, possibly even more. The neighbors in that area, someone mentioned, the neighbors in that area went to the Town Board and were able to get legislation enacted to deal better with the noise problem. I can only encourage the neighbors to voice their concerns to members of the Town Board so that they are aware of it so they can potentially take the appropriate action. I'm hamstrung right now, personally, I have a legal subdivision in front of me that meets all the requirements. Board Member Conneman — My point is, can the minutes of this meeting be referred to the Town Board so they know that there is still a concern about this. Mr. Kanter — I think they get them automatically. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 27 Chairperson Wilcox — They get them automatically. Board Member Conneman — Can we be sure that they read them and... Chairperson Wilcox — No. laughter.... Mr. Kanter — There is a telephone... you can call. Board Member Hoffmann —Well, the other thing we could do. is we could make up a resolution to the Town Board saying what our concerns are and that would be a little different than reading the minutes. But we could, in a resolution, urge the Town Board to look into these problems and see what they could do. Chairperson Wilcox —That we can do. Board Member Connemara — How would we do that, Mr. Chairman? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, right now we are in the middle of one item. We could hold that off till the end of the meeting, we can schedule it as an agenda item,. we still have ... we're behind here... Board Member Conneman = I think we should do it. I mean, we've been through this before. Board Member Howe — Can we add language to this resolution about the screening issue for the Recreation Way? Or is that outside what we are allowed to recommend? Mr. Kanter — I think you could probably do that. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we do that. Given... Mr. Kanter — I mean, I'm not exactly sure what the character of that particular, of those lots are, in relation to the Recreation Way, but, Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, we do know that 240 Pennsylvania, the rear yard does abut the Recreation Way... Board Member Hoffmann — It looks actually like there's a small structure very close to their boundary ... probably not the legal lot line, still, it looks like a little shed or something. Board Member Thayer — It's suppose to be torn down. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but in the process of tearing it down, if they damage the vegetation, that's the problem. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 28 Mr. Kanter — I was noticing on the aerial, but on the survey map, it actually shows that temporary building over the property line. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that's what Eva just said, that it's...we don't know ... we have the aerial with the property lines overlaid and ... Board Member Hoffmann — Well, this kind of situation is really a problem, because we have before us something which we can't have any complaints about because it's all legal, except maybe a structure which is over the property line now, which we've just discovered, but, so, if we permit the lots to be subdivided, then we are completely out of the picture, unless we need to be involved in some way with the houses being built, but normally, we aren't. That's building permit process. So, we are essentially powerless to do anything about planning better and that's not a very nice feeling to realize that that's how it is. Chairperson Wilcox — Our jurisdiction is the subdivision, not the granting of the building permits. Board Member Thayer — That's correct. Mr. Kanter — Unless the law is changed. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Unless the rules and regulations under which we operate are changed, but, as I said, right now we have subdivision. Board Member Riha — I like Eva 's suggestion that we, that perhaps at the next meeting, we discuss writing something to the Town Board, Board Member Howe — So I'll move this resolution. Board Member Thayer — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Any changes based on all that discussion? Ms. Brock — Do you want any language about screening... Chairperson Wilcox — Can we put in language that the one that the South Hill Recreation Way be protected during construction and can we recommend, be somehow on record as suggesting to other individuals within the Town who deal with the building of properties, that measures be put in place to protect the South Hill recreation Way during construction and 2) will you concur that there's an agreement to put up a fence with your neighbor, Orlando yes and Mr. lacovelli has nodded his head yes, that we would further recommend that Mr. lacovelli and the owner of 236 follow through on their agreement to construct a fence that will provide some sort of screening. I think we can recommend.... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 29 Ms. Brock — Who are you recommending this to? Chairperson Wilcox — It would be to the Building Department as part of the process for granting the building permits. Ms. Brock — If you don't make it a condition of your approval.. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I make it a condition? Can I force them... Mr. lacovelli — I think him and I have an agreement, and I don't think you have to put it in writing, and I don't think he thinks you need to put it in writing. Mr. ? — Then it doesn't get built then... Mr. lacovelli — It will be built, that's what I'm telling you. Board Member Conneman — What's wrong with putting it in writing? So that everbody understands what it says there. Chairperson Wilcox — There's an advantage to getting it in writing. I'm not sure we have the jurisdiction to tell Building and Zoning to do something. Mr. Kanter — I think you can require things like landscaping and buffering. I'm not sure that you can get as specific as a fence. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that's why I was using the recommend language. I was trying to back into... Mr. Kanter — Well we can condition the subdivision upon providing adequate screening and buffering to an adjoining lot. Board Member Riha — That sounds good. Mr. Fabbroni — Mr. lacovelli has. considered and said that he would accept that language in your resolution whether or not you have the authority to put it there. The other thing I wanted to say is that the border along the walkway here, there's an elevation difference from the property up to the walkway here that, and there's a fence there, so it'll be, we don't intend to disturb anything on that bank or remove the fence. The properties that were just developed at the beginning of the road were basically a ruins, there were a number of old foundations and poles and tress done so there was a whole different situation as far as cleaning up the site before the construction began. And I understand that people have the perception there was some encroachment on the piece of the walkway during the construction but there was a lot of clean up to do on the properties that were just built. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 30 Chairperson Wilcox — And I assume there will have to be some disturbance because, as your survey points out, there is a temporary building, which apparently is partially on the... Mr. Fabbroni — If you want to say that that building be moved onto the property, that's fine with Mr. lacovelli. Chairperson Wilcox — You realize that that building is certainly encroaching on land... Mr. Fabbroni — It may have been there by adverse possession before the Town purchased it from NYSEG but we're willing to move it. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Alright. While they discuss language over there ... I want to go right up to the edge of our authority without exceeding our authority, that's what I'm trying to do here. I don't know if you heard me Jon, I want to go right up to the edge of our authority, but I certainly don't want to exceed our authority. Mr. Kanter — Hard to tell when you get there. Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe the best answer is to exceed it and then worry about it when somebody pushes back, yeah, but our job is to try and get us to work together within the Town to deal with this issue for a better...they seem to have come to an agreement. What do you got over there Susan? Ms. Brock — Add a new condition C) Submission of a plan subject to the approval of the Director of Planning showing adequate screening between 240 and 236 Pennsylvania Avenue and between the rear of the new lots and the South Hill Recreation Way. Chairperson Wilcox — Love it. Acceptable gentlemen? [yes] Vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 071 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval lacovelli 2 -Lot Subdivision 240 Pennsylvania Avenue Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -17 Town of Ithaca Planning Board July 17, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -17 into two lots located at 240 Pennsylvania Avenue, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the existing lot (totaling +/- 18,625 square feet) into PB 7/17/07 Pg. 31 two new building lots (Lot 1 to consist of +/- 9,334 square feet and Lot 2 to consist of +/- 9,291 square feet) for the purpose of constructing new two- family dwellings on each lot. The existing house and garage will be demolished. Ralph lacovelli, Owner; Orlando lacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision-App roval, has on July 17, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short ,Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat of 240 Pennsylvania Avenue" prepared by L. Fabbroni, L.LS, dated November 22, 1992 and revised June 12, 2007, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision of 240 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -17, as shown on the survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat of 240 Pennsylvania Avenue ", prepared by L. Fabbroni, L.L.S., dated November 22, 1992, and revised June 12, 2007, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and b, submission of a copy of the receipt of filing the plat, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. C, Submission of a plan subject to the approval of the Director of Planning showing adequate screening between 240 and 236 Pennsylvania Avenue and between the rear of the new lot and the South Hill Recreation Way. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: PB 7/17/07 Pg. 32 AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — We are all set. Thank you very much and 1 think you are going to sit right there, right? Ladies and gentlemen, at 8:10, the next item this evening: SEQR Determination Raponi /lacovelli Lot Line Modification, 341 and 347 Coddington Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, we have your name and address so please give us a brief description. Mr. Fabbroni — Hopefully this is a lot simpler. Mr. current home sits on, 347, in 1988 from Mrs. Rap additional land from Mrs. Raponi and she would like consolidate that additional parcel into his 347 parcel. lacovelli purchased the Dni. He would to sell it to him Thank you, like to and he land, his purchase will then Chairperson Wilcox — I note that the 347 is the Raponi address, I believe. Mr. Fabbroni — No. 347 is Mr. lacovelli. Chairperson Wilcox — Is Mr. lacovelli's, thank you. So he will wind up with the additional land to the north, essentially, which would... Mr. Fabbroni — To the north of his current parcel. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Which would do much to deal with that current 15 feet 8 inch side yard that he has. It would give him a far larger side yard. Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — It would improve that condition. No new building lot ... there will be no new building lot? Mr. Fabbroni — Nope. We want to consolidate that, you know, once the deed transfer is made he will consolidate it with his existing lot. Board Member Hoffmann — So what is described on the subdivision plat as lot 3 proposed is just a temporary...? Mr. Fabbroni — It will be consolidated with lot 21 PB 7/17/07 Pg. 33 Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to environmental review? Board Member Conneman — No. Board Member Thayer — No. Chairperson Wilcox Would someone like to move the SEAR motion? So moved by the Chair: Do I have a second. Board Member Howe — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Rod Howe. I'm sorry. What's the matter? Board Member Conneman — Nothing. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. All those in favor please signal by saying aye? Board � Aye. Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody opposed? And there are no abstentions. The motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 72 SEAR Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Raponi 2 -Lot Subdivision (lot line modification) 341 Coddington Road Tax Parcel Nos. 53. -1 -14.2 and 53. -1 -14.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board July 17, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe, WHEREAS. 5. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 341 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53. -1 -14.2 Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subdivision of +/- 1.22 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 -1 -14.2 to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 -1 -14.1. Mary Raponi, Owner; Orlando lacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent and 6. 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 PB 7/17/07 Pg. 34 7, The Planning Board on July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Plat — 341 Coddington Road," prepared by L. Fabbroni, NYS PE /NYS LS, dated October 17, 1988, and revised June 10, 2007, and other application materials, and 8. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part 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, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. At 8:12 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox reads the following public hearing notice: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed lot line modification at 341 and 347 Coddington Road, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subdivision of +/- 1.22 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 =1 -14.2 to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 =1 -14.1. Mary Raponi, Owner; Orlando lacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions of these gentlemen with regard to the subdivision? There are none. You may have a seat, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, once again this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the Planning Board, you heard this spiel, please come up. Have a seat. Give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Discussion. Board Member Thayer — I'll move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer. Seconded by? Seconded by the woman on the end. I'm sorry. Seconded by Susan Riha. Any changes? Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 35 There being no further discussion, all .those in favor Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? abstentions. The motion is passed. Before subdivision plats over there, which given the after the meeting and then you can contact the convenience. All right? No one is opposed. There are no you leave, I believe I have two sets of proceedings tonight I believe I will sign Town Hall to come pick them up at your Mr. lacovelli — Can I pick them up in the morning? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. You.should be able to pick them up in the morning. Mr. lacovelli — Well, finally they gave you something easy to do. [laughter] Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. lacovelli — Thank you. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 073 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval Subdivision (lot line modification) 341 Coddington Road Tax Parcel Nos. 53. -1 -14.2 and 53. -1 -14.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board July 17, 2007 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 341 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 51-1 -14.2 Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subdivision of +/- 1.22 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 -1 -14.2 to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 53 -1 -14.1, Mary Raponi, Owner; Orlando lacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent and PB 7/17/07 Pg. 36 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 July 17, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on Short Environmental A Part II prepared by the Plat — 341 Coddington October 17, 1988, and and July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a ssessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Road," prepared by L. Fabbroni, NYS PE/NYS LS, dated revised June 10, 2007, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53. -1 -14.2, as shown on "Subdivision Plat — 341 Coddington Road," prepared P.E. /NYS L.S., dated October 17, 1988, and revised Ju the following conditions: and Final Subdivision 341 Coddington Road the survey map entitled by L. Fabbroni, NYS ne 10, 2007, subject to a, submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and b. submission of a copy of the receipt of filing the plat, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and c. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 1.22 +/ acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 53 -1 -14.1, and evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None PB 7/17/07 Pg. 37 The Motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Bear with me, ladies and gentlemen. I need to catch up here on a signature. Thank you very much. I think Dan has been sitting over there waiting patiently. Okay. At 8:15 p.m., Chairperson Wilcox reads the next agenda item. SEAR Determination Ithaca Beer Company — Silo, 606 Elmira Road. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, if you'd step up to a microphone, please. If you would pull it over towards you. Name, professional address will work, and if you would provide a brief overview of what is being proposed tonight. Dan Mitchell, 606 Elmira Road Dan Mitchell, 606 Elmira Road, Ithaca Beer Company. We are proposing to put a silo that holds our malted barley, which is used in the brewing process. We've moved to this direction ... it's...as you are expanding in a brewery this is a move that brewers generally make to get out of bringing in truckloads of bags, 50 pound bags of malt. You move to a 40- 50,000 pound silo to get your ... what's called your base malt before you add your specialty grains. So we have expanded and we are at this point now that we could certainly use more space inside the building that is currently being taken up by the bags of malt and it would be a lot easier on our brewers to be able to use the bulk grain rather than putting 30 to 40 bags of 50 pounds each, malted barely in each brew, which we are doing about 9 a week. So it would be good for that. And there is a certain cost savings to buying bulk versus bag product. Chairperson Wilcox — Bring samples? Mr. Mitchell — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Didn't we ask him to bring samples the last time he was here? Board Member Thayer —Absolutely, Chairperson Wilcox — The height of the proposed silo, 32 feet. Color? Mr. Mitchell — Green. Board Member Thayer — Green rather than white Chairperson Wilcox — Just want to make sure it is green, would be green. Green rather than silver or an aluminum color. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, some of those... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 38 Chairperson Wilcox — A dark brown would work, too. Board Member Hoffmann — Some of those silver colors actually blend in fairly well with the sky, but I don't think this is going to be as high as that. Mr. Mitchell — Where does it say green, by the way. Mr. Hebdon — Right here. It says green finish. Board Member Hoffmann — Green finish on your sketch. Board Member Thayer —Yeah. Mr. Mitchell — I don't recall talking to the silo company about colors. I do notice, though, on the brochure they have a variety of colors. Board Member Thayer — The brochure says white. Mr. Mitchell — I saw white and gray. Board Member Thayer — The spec says green. Board Member Hoffmann — Did you make these sketches that we were provided with? Mr. Mitchell — Actually, my wife did. Board Member Hoffmann — What? Mr. Mitchell — My wife did. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh. Mr. Mitchell — But I did review them. Board Member Hoffmann — Both of them say, "green silicone polyester finish" and on the other one it says green finish. Chairperson Wilcox — It's not a problem because if it says green on: the plans we approve, green is what you do. Mr. Mitchell — Yeah ... uh ... it's not a problem. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Mitchell — I'm happy to do green. Don't get me wrong. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 39 Mr. Hebdon — She liked green. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan? Board Member Riha — A quick question. In terms of getting trucks into the silo, it's not going to involve new pavement or...? Mr. Mitchell No and that's actually why we are placing where. it is. We have an alley way on the north side of the building and that ... for placement of the silo and for filling it. They will be coming not quite once a month, but there is an alley way right there and they pull right up to the silo and they can fill it. Board Member Riha — Okay. Board Member Conneman — Dan, I wanted to clarify one thing. There are going to be no signs, no messages, no nothing on the silos? Because people do put things up on silos. Mr. Mitchell — And what are my allowances for putting a sign? What if, it said Ithaca Beer and a logo on the side? Board Member Conneman — I don't know, but according to this there is no sign included there and that is what I want to be sure. Mr. Smith — At this point for that zone, they meet the sign requirements. They have the wall sign and the freestanding sign. So they are at their limit right now. So without coming in for a variance or something additional, they are not allowed at this point to add anything, any signage. Board Member Conneman — All right. That's okay. Chairperson Wilcox — And as was said, the plans don't show any sign. Mr. Mitchell — Right. Board Member Conneman — Yeah. Okay. Just want to be sure. Board Member Hoffmann — The plans show something else, which is a little different from what is shown in the photos you provided. In both of the sketches, the silo has a flat top, whereas in the photos they have a top. Mr. Mitchell — They generally come with a rounded off top. Silos in general have round tops. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 40 Board Member Hoffmann — So, my question is, the sketch shows it with a flat top and a total height of 31 feet 10 inches. Does that mean it is really taller if it has a pointed top? Mr. Mitchell — Yeah. It's not a pointed top and you're all looking at this? Board Member Hoffmann — Or rounded? Chairperson Wilcox — Uh, yes, I'm looking at that. Mr. Mitchell — It is slightly rounded. It's not flat. They are more likely very similar to the tanks that I have inside of the building. This is just taller and they have rounded off ... they're not dead flat. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but what is the extra height above the horizontal rim up there at the top to the center of that dome, if it's rounded. Mr. Mitchell — They usually measure from the center of the highest point down. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. All right. Now, the other height question I have is, how high is the silo as compared to the height of the building, which it's going to be next to? Because you don't have a drawing that indicates that. Mr. Mitchell — I believe the height of the building ... 14 that could be 17 feet, right around there, 18 feet. It's sloped. I think it is 18 feet on it's highest point. 'So, about 14 feet taller. Right? Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — And as a result, should this board grant the approval, it would be subject to the Zoning Board granting a height variance. Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. What did I miss? Ms. Brock — In this zone, structures are permitted to be 36 feet high as of right in the Light Industrial zone. Chairperson Wilcox — So it's not the height. It's the area variance. Ms. Brock — It's the setback. Chairperson Wilcox — It's the setback. Thank you. Okay. So... Ms. Brock — The height requirement is met. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 41 Chairperson Wilcox — My apologies. Thank you. For some reason I was thinking height and the setback. Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Again, on the environmental assessment form, it's the same point again. Point 10, where it has been checked off as industrial present land use in the vicinity, but I thought there was also some commercial use there in the vicinity and maybe agriculture even. Chairperson Wilcox — Certainly... next door is... Mr. Mitchell — We have barren land on the north side. Chairperson Wilcox — And well the other thing is how we define vicinity. Residence is still there, right? Mr. Mitchell — There is a residence across the street. Chairperson Wilcox'— Yeah. Right. The residence is still there. Okay. The other building which has gone through multiple retail uses over the years, I think is empty at the moment. Its been a bread store or something. Its been a book store. Its been a whatever store. But clearly, there are retail uses in the area or commercial uses in the area so I think that is appropriate. Board Member Hoffmann — So we should mark commercial and maybe residential also? Is that what you were saying? Chairperson Wilcox — There is one house across the street, isn't there? Mr. Mitchell — There is, yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — There is a house across the street. There is. Okay. So there is residential. That's fine. Board Member Hoffmann — And what about agriculture. Board Member Riha — It's an abandoned field. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, I don't think so. I'm not sure. 1 .. Board Member Hoffmann — There is no agriculture in that area any more? Chairperson Wilcox — No. Okay. So we will leave it at that. Board Member Howe — I will move the resolution. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 42 Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by George Conneman. Any further discussion with regard to the environmental review? Ms. Brock — One more change to the Part I. Number 11, does the proposed action involve a permit approval or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency. We need to add Zoning Board of Appeal variances. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. I will make that changes. Ms. Brock — Mark it yes and add Zoning Board of Appeal variances. Chairperson Wilcox — You have the official copy? Okay. So you will make that change and I'll ... any discussion with regard to the environmental review? There' being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? passed. Stay right there Dan. There are no abstentions. The motion is ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 074 SEQR Preliminary and Final Site Plan Ithaca Beer Company Silo 606 Elmira Road Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -2.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 17, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site proposed malt silo at the Ithaca Beer Company located Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial includes the installation of a 32 +/- foot tall, 10 +/- foot diE northeast side of the existing building. Yunis Realty, Company, Applicant; Dan Mitchell, Agent, and Plan Approval for the at 606 Elmira Road, Zone. The proposal meter malt silo on the Owner; Ithaca Beer 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled "Site Plan — Proposed Grain Silo — Ithaca Beer Co." dated April 27, 2007 and "Section PB 7/17/07 Pg. 43 Proposed Grain Silo" date stamped June 18, 2007, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes of environmental significance in accordance with Article Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York Sta Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. a 8 to 0 I, negative determination of the Environmental Environmental Quality n the information in the and, therefore, a Draft At 8:25 p.m., Chairperson Wilcox read the following public hearing notice: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed malt silo at the Ithaca Beer Company located at: _606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes the installation of a 32 +/- foot tall, 10 +/= foot diameter malt silo on the northeast side of the existing building. Yunis Realty, Owner; Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant; Dan Mitchell, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the site plan that we haven't already covered? George, did you want to make any comments with regard to the site itself? Board Member Conneman — Dan, I don't mean to be critical, but what is that building ... if you face the building, the left. What is that little building there that is not really part of the... Mr. Mitchell — On the property? Board Member Conneman — Yeah, on the property. Right next to the... Mr. Mitchell — To the entrance? Board Member Conneman — Yeah. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 44 Mr. Mitchell — It actually houses a CO2 tank, a ... CO2. Board Member Conneman — Okay. The other question is, there are different times have been passed there. I think some things aren't as pretty out there. There are some pallets and so on and so forth. My suggestion is, not only for your business, but also for the Town of Ithaca and the neatness of it, to be neat about what you have front. What you have in back, I don't know what you can do about it, but when I was passed the other day I happened to be riding with someone who said, gee, that place doesn't look as neat as it ought to. That wasn't my comment, so. Suggestion for you. Okay? Mr. Mitchell — Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I'm a little hesitant about the color, actually. Board Member Thayer — I was going to mention that. Board Member Hoffmann — I realize that the silo is going to stick up .14 feet above the highest point of the building and most likely it will be seen against the sky. I would hope that whatever color you choose will blend in with the surroundings, but if you choose a green, which looks like a fir tree or a spruce, that would really stand out against the sky. And in some ways, maybe a lighter color that will blend with the sky, which is sometimes blue, but a lot of the time kind of grey or cloudy, might be a better choice. I don't know what the rest of you think. Board Member Howe — It depends on the green. Yeah, it really depends on the color. Board Member Riha — You just want a color that will minimize the visual impacts. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Absolutely. We want to minimize the visual impact. Yes. Absolutely. Board Member Thayer — The manufacturing spec indicates it's a white silicon polyester finish coat. So I want to make sure that it is not white. Board Member Hoffmann - Most of these are not as tall, but this one is not higher than the building (looking a submitted picture) is painted the same color as the building. That makes sense, but when it sticks up quite a bit above the building, like this one here... Mr. Hebdon — Our water tanks are all a light green color. So it can blend in with the sky. Board Member Hoffmann — That stands out. The water tank that has the color that I like best is the fairly new one off Bostwick Road, I think it is, which is a dark green... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 45 Mr: Hebdon — That was because there were trees behind it, so it blends in... Board Member Hoffmann — Right and the color is very similar to the trees behind it so it almost disappears when you look across the way. If it had been a light green like the rest of them, it would have stood out. Mr. Hebdon — But if you ever drive past the Trumansburg tank which we just redid, they painted that a light green and it's really hard to see if your looking from 96 up because it fades off into the background also. Chairperson Wilcox — So if we are going to put some verbiage in the resolution as drafted... Mr. Hebdon — If it's just an epoxy coating on this ... Dan? Mr. Mitchell — I don't honestly know what the coating is on the silo. Mr. Hebdon — Because if it's an epoxy coating, tanks take a lot of different coatings, so, if you just want to put in the resolution that he pass the color through the planner or something... Board Member Riha -- Okay, the intent is to minimize the visual impact. Any other discussion. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. Rich DePaulo, 126 Northview Ave You must give this man his silo. You would perform a public service for this community for years and years ... It's the best beer in town and he's a hell of a softball player and know he's a good citizen. Give this man his silo. You're doing the right thing. Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted ... Larry Thayer, second by Susan... Mr. Kanter — One comment, if I could. I received a phone call who owns property across from Route 13 and he says he proposed silo but he was wondering how it's going to fit in wit property and what happens if Ithaca Beer outgrows the building back there. So they were just kind of interesting questions. them to the Board and see if there's any response. Chairperson Wilcox — It is an interesting question. Mr. Mitchell — The silo comes with me. Oh yeah. from a Mr. Hal Becker does not oppose the h the future use of the and then there's a silo I thought I would relay PB 7/17/07 Pg. 46 Board Member Riha — You'll own the silo. Mr. Mitchell — You'll own the silo. Chairperson Wilcox —You don't own the property... Mr. Mitchell — I don't own the property nor do I own the tanks beside the building but they are coming with me when I move. Including the silo. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Very good. Board Member Hoffmann So you wouldn't mind if we put additional condition to the resolution saying if the beer company ceases to exist at this property, the silo will be removed. Mr. Mitchell — I don't think so ... I know I need to move ... I don't know if you're asking, if some reason the Ithaca Beer Company goes out of business.. Chairperson Wilcox — No, it's just on that property... Mr. Kanter— But what if another beer company buys it and he wants to sell it to them? Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah but then the beer company wouldn't cease to exist in this property if another one buys it. Mr. Mitchell — What if another brewery comes and buys us and it's someone else's brewery ... then do I take the silo or can I... Chairperson Wilcox — Right. So the issue is not the Ithaca Beer Company, it's whether the property is used to brew beer, is really the issue. When beer is no longer brewed ... well, frankly, you could decide at some point that you don't want the silo and continue to manufacture beer at that location. That's possible too. Board Member Riha — But what you don't want is 20 years from now, an abandoned silo. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. Board Member Hoffmann — So we usually put in language when there are things like towers and that kind of thing, we put in language saying that when a certain use ceases to exist that uses that structure.. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, not the ownership... yes Susan... Ms. Brock — We can use language similar telecommunications law ... The solar collector law, perform its originally intended function for mo property owner shall remove the collector and later than 90 days after the end of the 12 month that? PB 7/17/07 Pg. 47 to the solar collector law and the it says "If the solar collector ceases to re than 12 consecutive months, the associated equipment .facilities by no period." Do you want something like Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, which essentially says when the use is no longer in existence, then the silo has to come down. That should be fine ... Dam.] want to make sure you're comfortable with that. Mr. Mitchell — Well, I think so... Chairperson Wilcox — I want to make sure... Mr. Mitchell — that's a property owner question isn't it? Chairperson Wilcox — Well you own the silo. Mr. Mitchell — The property being the silo? The property here being the silo? Ms. Brock — Right. Owner, Mr. Mitchell — My intention is that we are actually relieving some problems that we have with costs and added physical work for the brewers and storage to put this silo... Chairperson Wilcox — Right, we understand. I'll give you an example. Something catastrophic should happen to you, which we don't want to happen, the business, for whatever reason, stops, and we have a silo sitting there for year after year after year as UNIS Reality tries to rent this building to someone. That's what we're trying to avoid, that's all. Mr. Mitchell — That's fine. There's a demand for this type of thing anyway. Chairperson Wilcox — That's the purpose there and clearly, if you own the silo, should you require larger facilities and move, you're going to take the silo with you ... yeah, okay. I have a motion and a second and I am waiting on language over here. Ms. Brock — Under resolve clause 2, add condition b) approval of the malt silo's color by the Director of Planning, such color to minimize the silo's appearance. C) If the silo ceases to perform its originally intended function for more than 12 consecutive months, the silo owner shall remove it and associated equipment and facilities by no later than 90 days after the end of the 12 month period. Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable Larry and Susan? Okay. You okay with that? PB 7/17/07 Pg, 48 Mr. Mitchell — I'm fine with that, yeah. Chairperson Wilcox —We're not trying to create a burden, we're just trying to deal with the eventually if beer is no longer being manufactured there. Any other discussion? Susan, you all set? Ms. Brock — Yes. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB'RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 075 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Ithaca Beer Company Silo 606 Elmira Road Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -2.1 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 17, 2007 Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site proposed malt silo at the Ithaca Beer Company located Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial includes the installation of a 32 +/- foot tall, 10 +/- foot diE northeast side of the existing building. Yunis Realty, Company, Applicant; Dan Mitchell, Agent, and Plan Approval for the at 606 Elmira Road, Zone. The proposal meter malt silo on the Owner; Ithaca Beer 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval has, on July 17, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Site Plan — Proposed Grain Silo — Ithaca Beer Co." dated April 27, 2007 and "Section Proposed Grain Silo" date stamped June 18, 2007, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and PB 7/17/07 Pg. 49 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed malt silo at the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, as described on drawings titled "Site Plan — Proposed Grain Silo - Ithaca Beer Co." dated April 27, 2007 and "Section Proposed Grain Silo" date stamped June 18, 2007, subject to the following condition: a. granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. approval of the malt silo's color by the Director of Planning, such color to minimize the silo's appearance, and c. if the silo ceases to perform its originally intended function for more than 12 consecutive months, the silo owner shall remove it and associated equipment and facilities by no later than 90 days after the end of the 12 month period. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — I want to thank all of you in the audience for being patient. We are running about 50 minutes behind ... that's...l shouldn't say behind, it's a guesstimate of how long each agenda item is going to take. I will also invite members of the public behind us and beside us ... that will make it easier for you to view the charts and graphs and other visuals that will be presented tonight. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:38 p.m. SEAR Determination Cornell University Sailing Center, 1000 East Shore Drive Robert Blakely, Cornell University am the applicant for the Sailing Center project on behalf of Cornell University and the Department of Athletics and Physical Education. As was the case with the sketch plan presentation back in February,. I have two other colleagues here with me tonight to participate in the presentation and answering questions. Sitting next to me is David Schlosser, the architect from Schopfer Architects in Syracuse and also, just behind us and ready to participate, is Al Gantert who was PB 7/17/07 Pg. 50 here before and is the Director of Physical Education for the Department of Athletics, so, we're prepared and ready to proceed according to your agenda. Mr. Schlosser — Before we get to the presentation on the concepts, Al would like to basically just discuss what the site usage currently id and the proposed usages once we get done with the improvements. Mr. Gantert — The activities that we are currently engaged in at 1000 East Shore Drive is sailing for spring, summer and fall physical education classes.. Water skiing for summer and fall physical education classes. We intend board sailing. I don't know exactly when I'm going to implement the instructional program for boardsailing. haven't determined that yet but that's forthcoming. We are also involved with engineering hydrology., with doing lake research, with Vinology from biological science and the potential of ornithology. They have expressed an interest in using the facility during the winter months, December, just to watch migratory bird patterns. That is not going on at the moment. I don't know exactly when it would occur but there is the possibility they would come down, set up on the deck with some cameras and photographic equipment and telescopes. We are running a marina with 60 slips and about approximately 10 offshore moorings and we are an open community membership program for anybody from the greater Ithaca community who wants to come to the facility and sign up for the membership and pay a given fee and they are free to use the sailboats. That pretty much describes the usage at this moment. We are maxed in usage. A number of boats are being used regularly on a daily basis. We can not increase programming so therefore, I don't expect any increase in activity in that facility. I did forget to mention the competitive sailing program. Men's and Women's sailing that operates in the spring and the fall. Fundamentally, the activity season for the planned marina, Merrill Family Sailing Facility, is from roughly April 1 to closing by November 1. Mr. Schlosser — Fred, do you want me, as a public hearing, backtrack to give an overview? Or do you want me to move forward from the sketch plan? Chairperson Wilcox — If you could spend 2 or 3 minutes with the overview, I think it would be a benefit to everybody. Mr. Schlosser — The site at 1000 East Shore Drive is approximately 2.54 acres that's owned by Cornell of which .033 acres is leased to the Town as a municipal park. That includes the pavilion and a property line that runs in this particular area, leaving approximately 2.218 acres, which, when we did our EIF, that's referred to as the site. So, for all discussion purposes here, the Town parcel has been taken out of the PB 7/17/07 Pg. 51 discussion. There's no work being proposed and no modifications to that particular area. The site itself consists of ... is bordered by Cayuga Lake on the west, the railroad. on the rail road end on the east. Obviously the municipal park and the lake on the north, and to the south, obviously, the lake and the marina. The nearest residential properties to the north are approximately 600 some feet from this point and anywhere from 12,000 to 14, OOO.from the southern portion. The properties across the street, immediately across the street is the Lake Source Cooling Plant and properties owned by Cornell and then industrial properties immediately to the south, southeast. Parking on site, approximately is 69 parking spaces, excluding 11 -14 which are dedicated to the Town. Those parking spaces are on the paved portion of the site. Everything that is used as the sailing center is the gravel area. The buildings currently on -site consist of the existing sailing center which is a one -story frame building approximately 12,000 square feet, the marina to the south, the boar launch ... at this location is a the one -story bathhouse and a small storage shed showing up in this area. Foliage on this site, which is basically along the shoreline, is intended to remain as is. With respect to high -water and flood areas, it's a flood zone, a FEMA flood zone C, which is very...which is limited and minimal flood implications. The site itself sits 2 -3 feet above the 100 year flood elevation of 386 and 4.5 -6.5 feet above mean high -water elevation. The proposed improvements, as preciously presented, include, and again, basically anything within the municipal park and current entry to the site access from Route .34 is not proposed to be modified, anything, obviously, within the railroad right -of -way, the highway right -of -way is not modified at all either. The existing sailing center will be demolished and constructed in its place and essentially almost over the top of it will be an approximately 55,000 square foot building, two -story with a deck out towards the lake side. We have reconfigured the gravel parking lot, there'll be no more asphalt, no further asphalt on the site, everything will be gravel, but we reconfigured it just for more logical parking patterns because what happens right now is people just generally park anywhere they please. Also, as part of this, we are removing some, an existing utility pole and some overhead wires that run from the north. There's an existing light pole at this location that is being removed. You can see, basically, the area that is relatively un- shaded, that's existing gravel that remains gravel and this particular area, that has a little shade to it, is existing grass that will be turned into gravel. The other improvements are basically a boat storage building for, again, approximately 20 x 60 boat storage structure that's shown at this particular location... I'll get into the location in a minute, the location has been selected to minimize view -sheds and impact on both the municipal park as well as from Route 34. There will be a minor widening of the boat launch area, but all improvements will be above mean water level, high water level. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 52 There will be no modifications to the shoreline and there'll be only gravel improvements on the existing peninsula. Essentially resurfacing and adding additional gravel to the existing pathway that goes out to the point. With respect to character, the building has purposely been set up in a residential style, residential materials, residential shape and form. This is a view from the lake, from the road. From a size standpoint, we have given you full elevations of all sides of the particular building. The basic is a single shed structure with ridgeline and peak facing the water which gives us the ability to use natural ventilation, take advantage of the winds off the lake, as well as natural lighting. It also helps from the standpoint of the purpose of the facility which is to, from an educational standpoint, to be able to control the view up and down the lake. It also, from a standpoint of watershed, it puts about 95% of the water back into the gravel area, which later on I will discuss how we're controlling water quality. The materials, which we have samples here, and I will pass around, basically is a wood look cement board siding, for maintenance purposes, a beveled siding clapboard. We have casement windows which are wood clad in a green and asphalt shingle in the roof. Chairperson Wilcox — Pardon me, but Kevin's not here to see this. I'm sorry, go ahead ". Mr. Schlosser — He'll never know the difference. Seven years from now you will know the difference because it will still look good. The deck will be finished to blend with the siding. The deck also has, is basically being used for an exit route off the second level. From a height standpoint, roof height is a typical two -story house with heights of approximately 27 feet 10 to its highest ridgeline, and a lower ridgeline on either side to break up the roofline at approximately 22 feet. Facing the road, you have an eave height of 10'/2 feet. Again, from a scale standpoint, it is very much of a residential scale and materials, shapes, and forms and the monitors which are shown again, are, add natural lighting to the great -room that's up on the upper floor. With respect to the storage shed, the storage shed, again, is purposely small in height with an eave line of 8 feet and a ridge height of 12'.6" it's done in the exact same materials, same asphalt shingle roof, same beveled siding, with ornamental barn doors on the road side and then a number of windows on the lake side. The location of the storage shed, as has been mentioned in your Staff report, will require a variance, and we will be submitting a request for variance by Friday of this week. The issue is basically, the site location has been selected for a number of reasons.. One, it is just about the farthest distance from the municipal park, thus reducing and virtually having no visual effect on the park itself. Because of the site, the elevation of the road, which is approximately 6 '/2 - 8 feet higher than the site of this location, Route 34 actually rises and the site actually falls. Concealment of this is very effective, which you will see in the visuals that we give you. From a height standpoint, the driveway is here, at approximately 2 '/2 to 3 feet height sightline and the drop in site, they would basically be looking at the ridge of this particular building. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 53 The variances that will be requested is a 64" to the edge of the property line, and the property line is actually the physical land.that is owned by Cornell, but they also lease and have long -term leases on the water rights to the marina as well. As has been determined legally, this is sort of the sideyard to the property line. However, from a practical standpoint, the distance from this building to the actual primary shoreline, is approximately 138 feet, so there is a pretty significant difference, and obviously, between it, is the marina and the peninsula, both controlled by Cornell. With respect to front -yard setback, we have a 30 foot front -yard setback and a 50 foot screen required, so we will be asking for a variance on that aspect. The issue here, of course, is the front -yard is being taken to the property line of the railroad and just for, again, purposes of distance to the road is approximately 90 feet. We gave you, last time we added to them, a number of .additional visuals which at sketch plan, I think you asked for several other views, which we've addressed.. You have smaller versions, I can certainly pass these around if you want to see...VVhat we've actually done is we've taken views from north, from south,. on the property from north and south on Route 34, from Stewart Park and from midway out in- the lake. And in all instances, not one skyline is broken or even close to being broken or any major view impeded. With respect to Route 34, either from the municipal park, obviously, it's bigger than the existing building, but the issue, from a view standpoint is it's relatively in the same spot and really has no major implications with respect to change of view or issues of that effect. We gave you several others which actually look at the storage building ... and as you will note, in the variance request, yes there are other locations on the site which we could put the storage building without request for variance, such as this primary area up in here, but I believe when everybody understands. what's going on at the site, this has much less implications visually and physically to any other activities on the site and obviously, the storage building itself helps to reduce the clutter on site by basically having a place to put the shells. We've additional given you ... that's the end of the visuals, for the moment... between the sketch plan and now, w have given you a variety of additional information. We've given you a full EAF, we have addressed drainage to the DEC, we have written determinations from DEC that a full stormwater, the SWIPPS, is not going to be required, that protection of waters permit also is not being required, but as suggested by DEC and also by your Staff, they suggested that we take a look and resolve water quality, which is basically the issue of flow over the gravel area. In working with the Staff over the past month, what has actually been developed and we have submitted to you additional plans on, is essentially filtration trenches which will go on the western edge of the gravel parking area and also on it's southern edge and we have retained Dunn & Skillmore, civil engineers, who have done a variety of calculations on water flow in this particular area and what these will do is basically, they are recharge systems. Collect the water, obviously stop any containments from cars or vehicles that are on the gravel area, flowing over the gravel area, from getting into the lake. And then additionally, what is shown on here is an erosion control plan from a construction standpoint. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 54 We have given you a variety of information on traffic counts. Existing and proposed. We have shown on the site, approximately, existing 79 parking spaces and increasing it to 86'. We have shown that at peak time, we have a need of approximately 70 or 77 parking spaces and an average weekend somewhere in the neighborhood of 33. There's also been an indication that during primary season, boat storage on site for anything other than the educational purposes and Cornell's purposes, will be eliminated and those spaces can be used for parking and use of ... during the weekend activities and peak hour activities. We've given you a landscape plan which basically shows a variety of low, that isn't the particular plan, obviously, but we basically have given you a variety of plants, low foundation plantings around the east side of the building and indicated that all foliage along the shoreline and any major trees on the site will remain. We've given you a complete photometric lighting plan. Lighting which is shown, I believe, is consistent with and I believe Staff has suggested some additional manufacturers' cuts, but. they are all fully shielded lights. We will get those additional manufactures' cuts to you but the wall sconces are essentially a cylindrical light fixture that has up and down light only and doesn't project out. We've shown you photometrics that indicate approximately .5 foot candles at a radius of 10 feet from the light, which basically means by the, time you hit anywhere near the edge, you'll have zero foot candles. There's 2 pole lights proposed. One is replacing an existing unshielded pole which sits right in the middle of the parking lot here and we're placing 2 poles, one at this location and one here. Both will full cutoffs and fully shielded lights and again, we will get that additional information but we've given you the photometrics which show that they have foot candle of approximately .2 foot candles at a radius of 20 feet from the center of the pole, which basically, they are being provided for general security purposes for the facility since it's after hours it's basically un- staffed and from a security standpoint, need the lighting. We've also given you information on, Al has given you, basically given you usage of the facility which basically. is suggestions that have been discussed before. A statement from Cornell has been given with respect to noise and usage of the deck, which I think clarifies that. There are several studies which have been done with respect to the soils. We have given you information from Atlantic Testing which has tested the soils and they have also given you a mitigation which basically shows that the soils, if left in place, are harmless and any disturbed soils need to be tested and anything that is tested will be determined as it's removed as to whether it's reused on site or whether it goes to a DEC controlled site. And testing will occur as it is excavated and determinations will be made at that particular time following Cornell's standard regulations. I believe that's the finish of the presentation. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Board Member Howe — Did you address any slope mitigation? PB 7/17/07 Pg. 55 Mr. Schlosser — There was a comment made, I believe in Staff or maybe it was in EAF, about slope and I didn't fully understand that since the site is almost as flat as can be. We have no construction on any slope that's over 5 %. Board Member Howe — The approach slope. Mr. Schlosser — We aren't doing anything to the approach slope because it is not land owned by Cornell, it's railroad property. Board Member Thayer — Didn't the fire department indicate they needed that adjusted somehow? Mr. Kanter — Yeah, they're talking about the slope of the entrance drive. Mr. Schlosser — We've met with ... I did not mention to you that we have met with Tom Parsons of the fire department. We had a long conversation because we had to resolve sprinkler system issues and obviously the issue of the municipal water which we have done and that would be done by temporarily placing a water storage tank with approximately 10,000 gallons on the site until approximately, what we hope to be, the end of 2008, when the municipal system is able to handle a sprinkler. In conversations with him originally, he had indicated that with a sprinkler system in place, that his only issue was the ladder truck and they normally wouldn't put a ladder truck in this particular site. They don't do it now and they wouldn't do it later. We do know that, obviously, in subsequent materials he sent, that he suggested looking at any alternative s that could be done and I believe Bob has done that and will explain what our potential is with that. Mr. Blakeney — Let me just add a bit about what David said about the entry driveway from the highway. Staff pointed out to us and I think that anyone that's been out to the site is aware of this, that the entry drive from the highway down to the railroad is pretty steep and we have no control over that because that's not Cornell University property. However, we've been.on site and we've determined that if there was a bit of asphalt added to kind of take the curved bottom out of that, that it would make for a bit of an improvement. Obviously we can not change the highway, that's fixed, and we can not change the rail road, that's fixed, and the distance between the 2 is only 16 feet, so anybody that approaches the site quickly learns that you need to be pretty careful about how you do it. So, for our part, we will attempt to contact the railroad. They are very, very difficult to get a hold of and slow to respond to things like this. We will also contact the highway department and propose that at our cost. We will attempt to improve that, but it would have to be with their approval because it's their land and not our land. So we do recognize the issue and we've talked to Tom Parsons about it, and as I've indicated, we've talked to Staff about it and I think we as much as anybody would like to improve upon that, but we are really constrained and don't have any control or authority over that. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 56 Board Member Conneman — Can you do something to mark the entranceway? When you come down there, it is very difficult to know where you're going to turn. I mean, going in to the Town park, it's,,, Mr. Blakeney — I understand, you have to be pretty much on top of it... Board Member Conneman — Can you push to somehow mark that... Mr. Blakeney — Well, here again, that's DOT property and I am sure they have lots of thoughts about what can be put within the right -of -way and so on, but we will certainly, and I think we indicated, that we would try to mark the entrance of the driveway. We fully understand what you're saying. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get us back to the environmental review. We really are heading into the site plan details. Board Member Conneman — Well I have another question. The material that you're going to use, is that material and not this? That looks red to me. Chairperson Wilcox — It wound upon the chair over there. Board Member Conneman — Is that exactly what you're going to use? Mr. Blakeney — That is exactly what is out there. Board Member Conneman — Because all of your diagrams show a red blotch, that's red. Mr. Blakeney — That's a color rendering... that's why we give you the materials, so... Board Member Riha — I had some questions about your management of the surface water and thank you for thinking about the quality as well as quantity. First was the, did I hear you say that you are also going to try to get these shed roofs, some of.the water running off of that to go into these trenches as well as the parking lot? Mr. Schlosser — Actually we have accounted for that. Of the roof area, we have less than 400 square feet that actually drains towards the lake and that 400 square feet is accounted for by the grass area between us and the lake. The rest of it basically sheds into the parking lot and is accounted for in the size and depth of those trenches. Board Member Riha — The parking lot is going to remain gravel, right? Mr. Schlosser — That's correct. Board Member Riha — Great. And then you're planning to put in these water filtration strips, but have you looked at ... have you done soil tests and looked at how effective PB 7/17/07 Pg. 57 these might be? And also, I'm concerned about how the lake levels are fluctuating, how deep these are going to be because, like Cass Park... Mr. Schlosser — We give you details on that and they basically are a maximum of 2 feet. What actually happens is, and again, that's above flood level and it's above highwater level. Board Member Riha — All right, so you know that. And then there's... you' re going to have filter fabric between the gravel and the soil there? Mr. Schlosser That's correct. It's a different texture stone, courser stone with the driveway stone on top. Board Member Riha — So it will be able to handle ... have you done perk tests or something like that to make sure that the... Mr. Schlosser — Right now, basically what we have given has been based upon the soil boring tests.and perk tests to confirm that are under way. And that will be done by final. Board Member Riha — And another question was, how do you maintain these kinds of water filtration systems? Mr. Schlosser — It has been discussed in the Staff report that we need to do the operating and maintenance... Board Member Riha — You agree to once in awhile replace the gravel or something? Mr. Schlosser — Basically you check it and take the top off of it and replace the topping, which is basically just the gravel. Board Member Riha — Right, because I don't know how long the filter actually lasts. Mr. Schlosser I can't give you an answer on that either, right now, but I mean, the filter fabric is not the issue, it's the silt getting into it from the top and it's stopping the water from getting down into it. So it's really, the core of this, will always function properly, it's just the top of it that can become silted up and allow the water to run over the top of it. That's what has to be cleaned and maintained. Board Member Riha — Okay. And about the culverts.' You have a 24" culvert that what, is now going straight, just into your parking lot? Mr. Schlosser — That's the beauty of the railroad and the highway department. They can just.basically drain onto your property and not resolve the problems. Board Member Riha — So you are going to try to redirect that. Of course it's hard to bet water to move at right angles, I mean it looks a little bit like... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 58 Mr. Schlosser — Actually, in this particular case it's not because we will grade.that area so that it will drain in that direction and that drain is actually down. It. does not impact the site under normal circumstances, but when we get any heavy rains, it does overflow that ditch if you will, that collection pond of sorts. Board Member Riha — So then this culvert that now sort of flows out, it will be redirected into the 48 "... Mr. Schlosser — That's correct, and the idea of that is basically what we're trying to do is resolve any containments from the gravel area, from vehicles, this basically,. this is clean water coming under the road, and basically stops that water from coming over here so what was a screen water coming under the road and basically stops that water from flowing over here and so these trenches don't have to get exorbitantly large.. If we were to take this water onto it then these ultimately have to become larger. Board Member Riha — but you think it will still exceed the capacity of.' 'the roads will be what ... graded at 48" culvert is taking. Jt will connect to that. Mr. Schlosser — The calculations that our consultants giving you at this point .basically indicate that 1 think we're having a what is it... a .1% impact, or something of that nature. It is very minimal and I believe your Staff has suggested some additional information for final. Mr. Hebdon — Yes, we have a laundry list of stuff like we always do, of things, and one of them is that we wanted the actual numbers on the 40 culvert with and without the 24" coming into it. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Mr. Hebdon — They have ... we asked for some check dams along that trench while they are getting it built to try and resolve the erosion and stuff and we also asked for the soils to be checked and their engineer actually has that in their calculations, saying that they need to check the infiltration rate. So most of the stuff has been covered. Board Member Hoffmann — Since you were talking about the soils that were checked, noticed the report was from the earlier proposal for the Remmington Inn,. for this property, and it looked like there were 4 test sites in the footprint of where that building was supposed to be. Now is this current building suppose to be in the same footprint where that earlier was? Mr. Schlosser — It's within some of the areas tested. Cornell has just re- released a request back to Atlantic Testing to update their report with respect to this specific project and I believe we probably will have that for the final, I suspect. But we won't, again, I can almost guarantee you that it isn't going to show anything different than what we've got in the recommendation because you could ... you know, we've done 4 test holes, we PB 7/17/07 Pg. 59 could put down 8 test, holes, we could out down 12 and it isn't going to show us anymore than basically... the concept will be as we excavate, the independent soils lab would be there testing and they will be directing and keeping a record of what's excavated, where it goes, and what quality it is and whether it can be reused onsite; replaced onsite. The intent is to reuse as much soil as possible onsite. Obviously if it's above containment levels, then Cornell has a standard policy and program for which it will be mitigated which it will be removed offsite. And those standards will be followed. Board Member Hoffmann — If I can go back to an earlier time, what was the reason for testing the soil for, well, there was lead and cadmium and something else, I can't remember what it was, and then there was something called VOC, which I wasn't sure what it stood for, it wasn't explained, volatile organic compounds, is that it, ..okay, but it was just a guess of mine ... Now what was the reason this soil was tested for those chemicals? Mr. Schlosser — The unfortunate part, sometimes, of testing, is you find things you don't want to find and in this particular case, you never build a building without testing the soil to see what the capacity of the soil is and as soon as you basically, under any standard survey, part of that test is that the soils drilled out as a tester, when they basically take these tests, they also have to do environmental sampling on the soil, so, it's not just simply to show the structural capacity of the soil but ultimately to try and detect any containments in the soil, any spills that have occurred or anything of that nature. Board Member Hoffmann — So there was no suspicion to start with, or knowledge, that there had been a spill that prompted this testing then? Mr. Schlosser — Correct. Ms. Balestra — Actually, that's not completely correct. The soil contamination was found during the Lake Source Cooling process and was added to their environmental impact statement, if I recall correctly. Chairperson Wilcox — And the determination, at this point, by New York State DEC is that the contamination is such that if the soils are not disturbed, then no remediation needs to be done. Ms. Balestra — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — If the soils are disturbed, then the soils need to be tested in order to determine what needs to be done with those disturbed soils, whether they can be re- used onsite, taken to ... or taken offsite where they must go, in terms of the DEC regulated facility or some other facility which could accept the soils, okay. Mr. Schlosser — (inaudible) ... the soils exceeded it minimally so even when it goes to a specified landfill, it has lesser issues than your basic fuel oil spills or anything of that nature, so the use of this soil and where it can go really does need the testing. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 60 Chairperson Wilcox _ The agreement would be that any disturbed soils would. be tested onsite immediately to determine... Mr. Schlosser -- That's fully specified in the bid documents, absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox -- We have many issues to go through and some of them have already been taken care of Visual impact... Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, that's a big concern of mine. Even with the .photos that you provided, I feel that the photos where taken from points that were far.enough away, either to the north or to.the south along Route 34 so that one really doesn't ... they don't really show the impact as one drives by closer to this building and .I would like to see some more pictures of how that would look and especially where the one building, the storage building and the main sailing center fairly close to each other,' as you go along, the two of them kind of come together and provide a very effective. blockage of the view. The other thing that has to do with the view is, you were talking about the strip of land between the road and the railroad track, and I think you said that you really, don't have any control over that, but it seems to me if the vegetation that is growing there is not maintained, you could easily block the view because of that, so I would like to. see some sort of something worked out so that that vegetation can be maintained so that it's nice, but it doesn't block the views. This is a problem that we have in other areas of the town as well as all over the world, actually, trees and shrubs grow and block views, but wherever possible to work out something so that they can be maintained and not overpower the scenery and block the views, I think that would be a good thing. Chairperson Wilcox — The existing vegetation is in the NYS right -of -way or in the railroads way? Board Member Hoffmann — Well I'm not sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Both of which are certainly outside the control of the applicant: It may even be outside the influence of the applicant, I'm not sure: Mr. Schlosser —yes, maybe... probably. Mr. ' Kanter — I think if they're in the railroad right -of -way the railroad would be maintaining it just to keep the tracks clear. Mr. Schlosser — Actually we have photographs from 2 years ago where there was quite a bit of vegetation along there and it's been cleared. I don't know whether it's been cleared by one or the other but I know who didn't clear it. It wasn't Cornell, so, that strip between the marina and south was pretty heavily concealed when full foliage was out and now I believe it's quite open now. Because we took all new photographs. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 61 Board Member Hoffmann — It would have an impact on this project too, whether the greenery along the road there is allowed to just grow and grow because it would affect the sight distances from the entranceway to this parcel. So, it's something that would be of concern to you, I would think, as well. Chairperson Wilcox - Anything else at this point ... I'm pleased to see that it looks like a residential building rather than a commercial building. Does it look like a house? Not necessarily, but at least it has the tendency towards a residential style building and with the sort of wood looking clapboard that you will use. Board Member Thayer — You've definitely done a good job in that respect. Chairperson Wilcox — We talked about the soil. We talked about the entrance slope and the mitigation and the issues there. So, I want to get into site plan a little bit, but I want to wrap that one up. You don't control the highway, you don't control the railroad, but we, I think as a Board, would not approve this project without the appropriate letter from the fire department, the Ithaca City Fire Department must be on record as saying that they can get to the site and provide the appropriate emergency response and we will not act without such a letter. Whether that requires the ladder truck to be able to get across the track and onto the site or whether it requires the water tanks which have the appropriate pressure, whatever it is, but I'm pretty sure this Board would not act without having a letter from the Ithaca City Fire Department saying that the plan is sufficient to provide the emergency response that they must do. We got some pictures of the water tank that went around. It's frankly, ugly, frankly it's beyond ugly. Sort of evil and it is temporary until when? And I say it because the Town has included the upgrading of the water service along that stretch in 2008. It doesn't mean it will happen in 2008, but right now it is being budgeted for or at least being planned for. There is a 6" water main that is insufficient to provide pressure for... Mr. Hebdon — At this point it is actually not coming off ... it's coming off the City system, through the high school and that area and it has a much lower pressure than if we provided it off our system through Remmington Road but we had to shut that piece of the system down because we were blowing the pipe apart. Chairperson Wilcox — And building this tank, that would give this property the pressure that it needs? Mr. Schlosser — We're actually providing the pumps ... it may never have the pressure, because we determined what the problem really was pressure and flow. We didn't even have the water. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So you needed the flow. Okay. So the tank will provide the flow that's necessary. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 62 Mr. Schlosser — That's correct. But the problem really is the flow because we're putting the pumps in place. Chairperson Wilcox — And that will, that tank will remain until such time as... Mr. Hebdon — Once we have the water line replaced we'll be able to service -them. We'll be able to open up a pair of a that will allow the pressure to increase. Chairperson Wilcox — And then we would certainly want that tank removed, wouldn't we. Mr. Blakeney — And if I may, if by any chance the water main is replaced prior to the project being built and ready for occupancy, there wouldn't be any need for us to install the tank. The tank is strictly going to be installed in order to provide a sufficient amount of water for the water sprinkler system. Mr. Hebdon — But yours is out to bid and mine is not so I would assume they are going to get done first. Chairperson Wilcox — David, where would the tank be located. If you.want to use that drawing and point to it's relative location. . . Mr. Schlosser — Right here. Where the road starts climbing. It's a 6 x 16 ... Chairperson Wilcox — It's a cylinder. Mr. Blakeney — It's a cylinder, it can lay on it's side. It has a diameter of 6 feet and a length of 16 feet. Mr. Hebdon — We need to see some calculations on how you get 10,000 gallons out of that. Mr. Schlosser — We will give you those calculations. Actually, the calculations came out to be 8,400. This happens to be an existing tank that Cornell has access to and coincidently is 10,000, so we will give you those calculations, but will provide more water than necessary. Mr. Hebdon — I see that. Chairperson Wilcox — I think that is in the draft... Board Member Hoffmann — Before we go on, could we have your name sir ... no, ..l know your name, you said it before, but the other gentleman who's been speaking... Mr. Blakeney — I'm Robert Blakeney.... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 63 Board Member Hoffmann — I just didn't know who you were, thank you. There were some discrepancies in the papers we got about the square footage that we are talking about for this facility, for the main facility. And I understand that it wasn't just the 2 main floors and the main center but some of the square footage we were given included also the deck space and some attic space...? Mr. Schlosser — I don't know if I would call it a discrepancy. Basically we .provided you all of the information on the cover sheet, which basically shows the building area which is building area per NYS Building Code, and there isn't ... we have this slope, this shed roof where there's an attic space that's in there and we gave you that calculation and then we gave you the depth. I believe the way Staff has suggested looking at it was the building area, plus the deck, plus the attic. So I'm not sure I would call it a discrepancy because the information is all there, but... Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that in the resolution we know what it is we're talking about. Mr. Schlosser — I think the first time I say the different interpretation was in the information that came out today, and if that's what this Board wants to refer to it..as, then that's what we'll do. Mr. Blakeney — Well I think when you're talking about the gross square footage of the building though, you don't include appendages like decks. That's outside, as a separate calculation. Nor would you include an attic area that is an uninhabitable area. So I think the numbers that we've presented represent the habitable area and to the outside walk. So I think our numbers are correct and I would ask the Board to take another look and please don't refer to this as a 6,000+ square foot building because we don't believe that's the case. Board Member Hoffmann — You mention the attic space being uninhabitable, I believe you said what is it used for? What is it to be used for? Mr. Blakeney - Mechanical equipment will be in there which avoids putting it on the roof, so, it basically goes .from, door height, very quickly down to zero and there's just enough place to stick the mechanical piece. Chairperson Wilcox — Is it more of an architectural detail? Mr. Blakeney — It's just space that happens to be there because of the .roof line. The outside roof line, absolutely, and we were lucky enough to capture it because otherwise we would have to figure out ... I think at one point, conceptually, we actually had that as a flat roof with rooftop equipment shown on it and then we basically developed the idea and progressed with basically putting the roof fully sloped which gives a better public appeal because then basically all the rooftop equipment can be concealed. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 64 Board Member Hoffmann — I thought it had something to do with the ventilation as well, which made sense to me. Mr. Schlosser — But the equipment that is in there is also mechanical ventilation because of the wet equipment that's in there, we have actually used natural ventilation to the point where it is capable of doing it and beyond that, because of moisture and mold and the wet equipment, we've had to add some mechanical as .well, to supplement, and that equipment is in there. Board Member Hoffmann — Now, we had some suggestions from the Tompkins County Department of Planning and I thought we should talk about that. They suggest, since Cayuga Lake has been identified by New York State and the National Audubon Society as an important bird area, they feel that at least some of the waterfront area should be planted with native vegetation to provide habitat for lakeshore species, which I think would be a good idea too. And they recommend that construction plans specifically include erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management measures to protect that lake and lake shore... Chairperson Wilcox — Which frankly is ... I'm sorry, I have to be careful here ... I am in a public forum ... is a redundant statement, how's that ... it's the best I can do ... of course we're gonna get that. If we don't have what we need, we'll make sure we get it. Board Member Hoffmann — Now the other thing that they are suggesting, is something which I took to hear because I was quite concerned about the statement which is in all of our resolutions, including the SEAR, which is why I am bringing it up now, this change in the zoning... Chairperson Wilcox — For everyone in the audience, one of the things that we are being asked to do is recommend a zoning change to the Town Board as part of the review here. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, and the change in the zoning, I don't have the wording in front of me... Chairperson Wilcox — It would allow educational, institutional uses in a lakefront commercial zone. Ms. Brock — It would allow educational uses. Not other institutional uses. Board Member Hoffmann — No, but it said any educational uses, which is what really made me worry, because that could be anything. If you think about what already exists now on Cornell's campus, it really could be anything, and the Tompkins County Department of Planning suggests that it should be limited to only water - dependent education and research uses and to me that makes a lot of sense and I thought that we should talk about that. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 65 Chairperson Wilcox — And furthermore, if we want to when we get to it, we can modify our resolution drafted to encourage the Town Board to consider.that, but, the other part of this is that by making that recommendation, the County would force the. Town of Ithaca Board to a super - majority, or a majority plus one, if they decide not to incorporate that, or similar language into their resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, I found the language here, I just want to read it so we all know...to amend the language to read, "to include also public, parochial and private schools and any institution of higher learning, excluding dormitory accommodations." Chairperson Wilcox — So we could, as I said, we could modify, we could recommend to the Town Board that they adopt a zoning change with this revision, for example, if we thought that was important, to limit it to educational, water- dependent education and research. Board Member Howe — I like... Chairperson Wilcox — yeah, so do I ... Susan, you got a puzzled look on your face. Board Member Riha — I'm just getting confused about, there's no restriction... Cornell could ... like if the Science Center wanted to have an educational activity there, would that not be possible at this... Board Member Hoffmann — I assume it would be water related, otherwise, why would they need the... Board Member Riha — So . it doesn't restrict Cornell from allowing other. educational institutions ... that's...l wanted to make sure that they could allow.other groups besides just Cornell Chairperson Wilcox — Cornell education and research that should be near the water because it's related to or dependent upon the water. Board Member Riha — But if there were reasons like people were going to come down from Syracuse or something and also look at this, you know, use the facilities, that that would be possible. Chairperson Wilcox — But administrative offices can be an educational use, for example, and we're excluding dormitories specifically but not any of the other potential educational related uses. Mr. Blakeney — I would like to suggest...we just received the letter before walking into the room, and I would like to refer that to others at the university, including Cornell Counsel because they, of course, are an active role player in terms of fashioning that language, so I don't think I'm prepared to say, yes that's okay or no, it's not okay. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 66 Chairperson Wilcox — Actually, we weren't asking you if it was okay with you, I'll be perfectly honest, but thank you for your comments. Board Member Hoffmann — We also. received it tonight as we walked into this room, actually, so, it's new to us. Mr. Blakeney — Can we come back to the other point that Eva rose concerning the second letter, having to do with additional vegetation ... I think certainly we would be very happy to look at that. We're very concerned about the habitat and the environment as well, but I think we would want to understand what plants are desired, because on the one hand, one could imagine that if you put something there that maybe the birds might like, the view shed might be interrupted and you could put so many plants there that you wouldn't be able to see the lake anymore. All the issues that we've talked about with respect of wanting to be able to maintain the open view to the land and we've been very, very careful with respect to DEC not to, to very specifically say that we are not going to tinker with the shoreline. So, I would just like to understand better what it is that they have in mind. Board Member Hoffmann — I am sure that there is a choice of plants and there probably are experts on this, both the plants and the birds, at the university who could be helpful as well as at the state level. Ms. Balestra — May I may a comment, just quickly, to clarify, just for the record ... The reason why no one saw the Tompkins County Planning letter is because we received them at 4:35 p.m. today. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, one right after the other I noticed. Okay, lighting... questions about lighting? I'm feeling pretty good about the lighting as proposed, consistent with the Town lighting ordinance. Board Member Riha — Are we still on the SEQR? Chairperson Wilcox — We're still doing SEQR. Absolutely. So I'm kind of running through the various... Susan, you're comfortable with the drainage, sedimentation control? We have some additional details that are required, but given the verbiage that we've received. Okay. That's my list here, which essentially parallels the memo that Christine prepared. Any other environmental issues that we need to talk about right now? I'm looking on the Staff side ... Chris, anything I haven't brought up? Mr. Kanter — Maybe just for the record, point out that this package did include this site usage and traffic analysis which I thought was pretty helpful. It really put some numbers down in terms of the different groups who would be using and the number of people who would be... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 67 Chairperson Wilcox — You're talking about the spreadsheet? Oh yeah, absolutely, it was amazing, the amount of detail on that in terms of how people get there and things like that. Mr. Kanter — So that really, I think, supplements the traffic study portion that was really very generic, but with this, provides real specific information on site usage, So I thought that was pretty helpful. Ms. Balestra — There was one suggestion in the memo regarding the landscaping that Staff wanted the Planning Board to consider, is adding additional trees surrounding the sailing center building. Staff didn't have an opinion, a strong.opinion towards it, it was just a suggestion for the Board to consider. Board Member Riha — I got the sense that some of the reason you wanted...the students to be inside ... to be able to see the lake ... So, you'd have to figure out how to... Board Member Howe — And not to restrict views from east shore as you're looking out, as well... Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I would imagine that since the land slopes down from the road and then it's fairly flat, that plantings on the eastern side of the building would not really obstruct views. And even a little to the south and to the north, perhaps, as long as they are not really tall and green year round. And there are so many choices of plants, now. As long as one gets the right species and one knows that it's labeled correctly, you know, it doesn't have to turn out to be a great big thing that blocks the view, it can be just something that adds attractiveness to the site. Chairperson Wilcox — And potentially softens the view, in some way. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, and you know, even tall trees are okay, because the crown of the tree, from the point of view where you see it, the crown of the tree might be at the level of the sky and then you have the trunk and then you just see the view through... Chairperson Wilcox — Under the crown. Board Member Hoffmann — Between the level of the ground and the bottom of the crown, so that's okay, but those are kind of things to think about when you keep trees and... Chairperson Wilcox — Any other discussion with regard to the environmental review? Someone like to move the SEQR motion? So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. There being no further discussion. All those in favor...oh.. Board Member Hoffmann — Did we want to make changes here? PB 7/17/07 Pg. 68 Chairperson Wilcox — I just got smacked, because I didn't look at the Attorney for the Town. Yes, Ms. Brock — The second whereas clause, after the reference to the zoning amendment of the lake front commercial zone by the Town Board, you should add and a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals." Ms. Balestra — I also have a suggested... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on ... Acceptable to Rod and Susan, I think... yes.... go on. Ms: Balestra — The visual addendum, on the second page, talks about exposure of annual number of viewers likely to observe the proposed project. In exhibit 4, the traffic volume data provided by the applicant, they indicate that it's 8,200 plus of minus, average annual daily traffic counts, and we put 8,000 in the visual.' 'I'm just proposing that we change it to 8,200 to be more accurate. Chairperson Wilcox — You want to change the visual impact, the visual EAF, and this is. exposure #6, and you want to change 8,000+ to 8,200 +... Ms. Balestra — To be more accurate... Chairperson Wilcox — That's fine. We're going to change that to 8,200+ Board Member Hoffmann — My question, in the first whereas, is, where it talks about a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a zoning amendment,.Ao we need to discuss that zoning amendment now? And perhaps change it before we approve the SEQR? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we could. "Jf it's appropriate. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, what do you think Susan? Ms. Brock — What would the proposed amendment be? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, as I said, I feel a little unhappy about having it say public, parochial and private schools and any institution of higher learning, excluding dormitory accommodations, and I liked the language that was proposed by Ed Marx, instead. That instead of any institution of higher learning, to write, water - dependent education and research uses. Or something like that. Board Member Riha — We're doing the SEQR right now. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but it says, right in the first part, it talks about this... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 69 Ms. Brock — Would you're determination of environmental impact change depending on what the zoning says? Whether it says any uses? Chairperson Wilcox — Does our determination of environmental significance change, that's the question and in fact, I think this Board is leaning towards the language that the County has recommended, which would in effect would limit, in some way, those educational uses. Board Member Howe— So does that have an environmental... Chairperson Wilcox — I can't see it would have a further....would have a detrimental environmental impact and potentially could have a positive environmental effect because we would restrict the uses to something, not all educational uses, we should be clear, we would recommend to the Town Board that the zoning amendment restrict educational uses to ones which ... I'm sorry, let me look over your shoulder again. ..water related, so that, in some sense, probably narrows the list of activities, unlikely to me, to have a negative environmental impact and could potentially have a positive environmental impact. By reducing what could occur on that site, legally. Board Member Hoffmann — And in general, it seems to me more appropriate anyway, because if it could be any institution of higher learning, it could be another ... a branch of the hotel school. Chairperson Wilcox — Well remember, a hotel /restaurant is legal there. A hotel or restaurant can be placed there under the zoning. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but I think we decided, with the application that we had, that it really wasn't appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — No, that that particular proposal was not appropriate. Board Member Conneman — What harm does it do to put it in the SEQR? That's my question. Chairperson Wilcox — But again, what action is before this Board. The actions before this Board are; site plan approval, special approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board, and, are we making a recommendation to the Zoning Board? ... no we're not, ..so those are the actions that we are going to take, and SEQR covers all of them. Mr. Kanter — We're actually doing an uncoordinated review of an unlisted action, and the Town Board will be responsible for their own determination on the zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Ms. Brock — You don't do SEQR...you recommendation to the Town Board, don't normally do SEQR on your PB 7/17/07 Pg. 70 Chairperson Wilcox — We normally do not do because we're not the lead agency, that's correct. Ms. Brock — Right, because it's not any action that...it's not an approval or anything like that. Chairperson Wilcox — That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So maybe we should strike those words.in the first whereas then. Ms. Brock — Which words? Board Member Hoffmann — A recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a zoning amendment. Ms. Brock That would make it cleaner, until you...yes. I mean, I have some comments about the proposed changes, but I don't think that's appropriate right now, for the SEAR. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So how do you want to change the. resolution as drafted? Ms. Brock — Under proposed actions, include consideration of preliminary site plan approval and special permit for the proposed Merrill Family Sailing Center. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — And also in the title, take out recommendation to the Town Board.:.. Chairperson Wilcox — Changes acceptable? (yes) Susan, any other changes? Ms. Brock — The last sentence, in paragraph one, under the whereas clause, the Town. Board is referred the. proposed Lakefront Commercial zoning amendment to the Planning Board for recommendation. Should be stricken as well. Let me see if it comes out anywhere else... Ms. Balestra — in the whereas number 2? No I take that back. Ms. Brock — Well, no. The zoning amendment is an unlisted action and that's being considered by the Town Board, so that should remain because we're also listing the variance by the ZBA...We can strike number 3, which is the referral by the Town Board to the Planning Board for recommendation... Chairperson Wilcox — All right. And 6 needs a change too to... PB 7/17/07 Pg. 71 Ms. Brock — Right, strike proposed zoning amendment. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. So SEQR has to do with our actions which are preliminary site plan approval and granting the special permit. ' Board Member Hoffmann — So this last sentence goes... Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. I am looking at the official copy over here. Any other discussion with regard to the environmental review? I have a motion and a second, we have changes that have been accepted, there's no further discussion ... all.those in favor please signal by saying aye....anybody opposed.. there are no abstentions...the motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 076 SEQR Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Merrill Family Sailing Center 1000 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 19 -249 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 17, 2007 Motion made by Rod Howe, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: 1: The proposed actions include consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Merrill Family Sailing Center, located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new, two -story, +/ -6,787 square foot sailing center with observation deck. The proposal will also include the construction of a new +/ -1,200 square foot boat storage shed located south of the existing bathhouse, expansion of the existing parking area, and improvements to the gravel boat launch. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert Blakeney, Agent, and 2. The proposed actions, which include site plan approval and special permit by the Planning Board, a zoning amendment of the Lakefront Commercial Zone by the Town Board, and a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, are Unlisted pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca titled "Environmental Quality Review ", and 3. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on July 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part 11 of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning PB 7/17/07 Pg. 72 staff, a set of site plans titled "Preliminary Site Plan Submission, May 4, 2007, for the Merrill Family Sailing Center, Cornell University, 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, NY," specifically Sheets T1 (Title sheet), EX1 -EX2 (Site Survey sheets), L1 -L5 (Site, Grading, Erosion control, Landscaping, and Lighting Plans), A4 -A5 (Exterior Elevations); PB1 (Boat Storage Shed Exterior Elevations), E1.1 and P1.1(Site Utility sheets), VS1- 3(Viewshed Study sheets), revised , L2 -Site Plan and P1.1- Plumbing Utility plan (dated June 21, 2007), revised L3- Grading, Sedimentation, and Erosion Control Plan (dated July 3, 2007), anti other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan approval and special permit, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed,. based on - the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Stay right there gentlemen. Before I move on, -it's ten minutes to 10:00. These people have been waiting here patiently. I don't know whether to open he public hearing now, give them a chance to speak, and we let everybody speak, and we could run to 10:15, 10:30 ... or. whether, at this point, I feel sorry for these people because they've been sitting here since 7;30, 7:45 ... do we, simply, not even begin the public hearing and the actual consideration and push that off to the next meeting, given the hour that we're at right now? Board Member Thayer — Let them speak. Chairperson Wilcox — I'd love to let them speak, frankly, because they've been sitting here. Board Member Hoffmann — Why not. We don't' have to make a decision. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 73 Chairperson Wilcox — Right. We don't have to make a decision, it's also a way of saying, can we go past 10:00 which is our agreed upon stopping time, is the other thing... Board Member Howe — Thank you for asking. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. So we're gonna do that first. Gentlemen, if you would take a seat. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration_ of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Permit and a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to add educational uses and additional yard regulations to the Lakefront Commercial Zone in conjunction with the proposed construction of the Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new 2 story, +/= 5,466 square foot sailing center with a +/= 805 square foot lakeside observation deck. The project will also include the construction of a new 20' x 60' boat storage shed, improvements to the gravel boat launch and parking areas, and new outdoor lighting and landscaping. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant, Robert Blakeney, Cornell University and David A. Schlosser, AIA, Schopfer Architects, Agents. At 9:51 p.m., Chairperson Wilcox read the following public hearing notice: Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, if you were listening, we are going to hold the public hearing right now because, frankly, you have been very patient sitting there. We want to give you an opportunity to speak and don't want to have to make you come back the next time. So given that, I will call on you in no particular order. I'll ask you to raise your hand. I'll ask you to come to the table, give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. Marie Goeritz, 118 Schuyler Place, Apartment 2 Marie Goeritz, 118 Schuyler Place, Apartment 2. I'm speaking to you on behalf of the Cayuga Wind Surfing Club. We have many members of the club here tonight and some of you may know the Wind Surfing Club is located at the East Shore... actually, this little shed that is on the plans and doesn't have anything written next to it. That's our shed. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you to point to it? Ms. Goeritz points it out on the plans. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 74 Ms. Goeritz-- It's about ... I think it's 8 times 6 in feet and it's very small. We are. .as some of you know, we are here and we have been around close to 10 years: We are a Cornell sponsored club and our members consist of Cornell undergrads, and graduate students, of Ithaca College students and of many Ithaca locals. For a very small annual fee of $20 we provide equipment and knowledge to anyone interested learning how to wind surf. Most of these dues goes towards the $250 rent we pay to. Cornell for lake access and most of our equipment comes from generous donations by former club members or by other wind surfing enthusiasts. In the last year the. club has seen a dramatic increase and interest in new members. We have managed to make contact with professional wind surf instructors and we have been 'able to offer advanced and beginning level workshops like a three day wind surfing clinic in June under their guidance and their supervision. We are very excited about the new sailing center and we welcome the idea of a community based facility that allows anyone to take advantage of the great resource that Cayuga Lake is for many of us. The fact that Cornell is planning to offer wind surfing or as Al said port sailing classes, is particularly exciting for us. We expect students from this class to return to the club for.continuous wind surfing activities and for the possibility to further improve their skills. The planning of the new sailing facility coincides with a point ... where the Wind Surfing Club has very much outgrown it's current shed and needs to think about alternative and additional storage. We already had sails damaged from inappropriate storage and . from being forced into the overcrowded shed, which also has a very, very small door so we actually have to really squeeze the sails to go in there and the more often we do this the more we damage our equipment. So in addition to that, we had very significant.donations in the past few month of high quality, intermediate and therefore, very fragile gear, which we would love to use, but we are afraid to store under.the current conditions in the shed and we are already storing most of our boats outside of the-shed in a rack unprotected. Theft, luckily, hasn't been .a problem so far, but we are a little bit worried to put the more expensive boards there and don't want to see them disappear. We hope'to.find a good and affordable storage solution in cooperation with Cornell, like combined storage with or adjacent to the new building for their and our own rigs ( ?) or options, for us to replace the shed with a larger and aesthetically more pleasing structure, like for example, a pre- built Amish barn, which we would customize for the club's purposes. So far we had very good experiences of collaboration with Pat Crowley, the manager of the East Shore Sailing facility and with AI Gantrich ( ?), the Director of Cornell PE. And we fully trust them to fully help us solve this problem. We have seen the plans and we think the new building looks very beautiful and will fit nicely into the East Shore area without destroying the large areas of lawn, which are both beautiful and extremely useful for the club for rigging and derigging sails and for on -land lessons, which we usually give to our members. Our only concern is that there appears to be very little storage planned within the building that would be suited for any wind surfing gear, Cornell's or ours. had a very friendly conversation with Al Gantert and he informed me there could be the possibility of storage under the deck area around the building, which might be used to store Cornell's and potentially our gear, but it's not obvious from the plans at this point. He assured me that we would find ... that he would help us find a solution that is workable for both Cornell and us. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 75 Chairperson Wilcox — Can we have that copy? Thank you. I would appreciate it if we could have that. Yeah, come up. I won't bite. Next? Sir? David Romm, 1006 East Shore Drive Hi. My name is David Romm. I live at 1006 East Shore Drive. This building will be my neighbor. I have a couple of comments to make. First, I am...l'm an enthusiastic supporter of the uses to which this plan refers. I don't have all the information that you have at all, but I certainly do support those usages. I do have. some concerns. One, even though I heard the architect say there will not be much of a change in terms of visual impact with this building, it is clear that even though the footprint may more or less be in the same place, with significantly larger and much, and I really thank whoever wants them to put some trees to screen, not in front of the lake, but at least to the north where I think large trees put to the north of that building would definitely make it much more attractive to look as you look down the lake at that building, which will stand out on that low spot and be quite visible. I know from my experience with my neighbors houses that those houses that do have trees on the side, they are much more attractive. They don't stick out so I would hope something like that takes place. I'm a little concerned about the deck and I'm also concerned, I have to say, about what I can only consider to be non - traditional or non- normal uses associated with this facility. And. really don't know even what kind of powers you may have in this regard, but I do have some experience with Cornell University. and my professional background is in restaurant and hotel management and event planning and I can assure you that an event planner loves unusual sites to give quite spectacular parties because, and who are these parties for, they are generally for people who an institution wishes to get money from, often, in many cases. I'm sure Cornell, actually, we know that Cornell spends a lot of effort in working that system and I'm a little concerned about the fact that it is quite conceivable to me that this site would be used or could be used for an event outside the normal days, times, usage of the event. My concern would be with the noise and light pollution associated with such an event. I don't have the details you have, but I don't know what the architecture is, what the interior is behind the deck, and there seems to be some kind of platform on the second floor also. I don't really know how that works, but a great room was mentioned and I can see a place with windows open and a party. An 800 square foot deck would be a lovely place to have a party on a Saturday night with a nice band and cocktails and things like that to entertain. This is not a water related educational use, but I don't know whether such 'a use would be prohibited under or even controlled under the ... what you are looking at now. And my main concern, my concern over the Remington project also was the issue of noise and light pollution in the southern end of the lake. It is a relatively pristine area in terms of noise at night. I was talking with a friend outside who referred to :it, again, how easily...you know the drumming at Stewart Park on a Saturday night you can hear it all over and that is the only really thing and the only kind of noise that.flows out into that whole southern basin of the lake. And so I would just hate to see that spoiled so I'm hoping that you will look at those possibilities and take whatever action you can to protect us and keep it under control. Thank you. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 76 Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Next? Rich? Yeah. I never knew you to be silent on this matter. Rich DiPaolo Well, I was just waiting my turn. I do have a couple of comments. First of all, I think that in general, I think that the facility that is proposed is in keeping with the existing uses and I think it is a much better idea than a luxury inn and hotel for what that's worth. As far as the reason for the uses, the original soil testing during the lake source cooling project and review was due to the former industrial use of the site by the Remington Salt Company and the coal fired power plant that accompanied that factory. And the soil data indicates that there may have been coal ash distributed on the site as a means for disposal. That, as you know, can bind to particulate matter and can be distributed by the wind. It has gone on largely unmitigated for years and years. My problem with the so- called leave it in place mitigation and this sort of test as you go, is that as soon as you disturb the soil, you create the hazard. By the time you do the testing, the hazard., the particles are already in the air. So I don't know that that really satisfies the risk. It doesn't really mitigate the risk of public exposure to these contaminants, particularly if you don't know what they are. Personally, I think it is basically now or never. You are standing at a fork in the road. Cornell acquired this property in the 1990s and with it inherited the responsibility to fully investigate and mitigate the contamination that has existed there for decades. So if you don't, I hate to say it, but Cornell is not going to voluntarily clean up this site. I don't know what is within your jurisdiction to do so. I would like to see this project proceed, but if you don't force Cornell to fully investigate the site and mitigate the soil contamination, it's simply not gong to get done. There is no guarantee that the student population that is going to be using this facility year after year isn't going to be subjected to airborne contaminants, to say nothing of what is continually leaching into the lake. The other thing I would like to mention is that these sediment control ditches, I imagine they're there strictly to mitigate sediment and silt runoff. That doesn't necessarily address the contamination that comes from the other voodoo associated with automobiles, so there would be oil and gas and so forth and what happens to those things as they settle out. Invariably they enter the ground water which then enters the lake, so, I don't know whether there is a consideration to be taken there, but I can't stress enough that this kind of is, this is the witching hour with respect to cleaning up that site. If it doesn't get done in conjunction with the construction of this facility, it's simply not going to get done. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — You've all been very patient, anybody else wish to speak? Last chance ... no really, I really want to give people a chance to speak. The last thing I hate is to close the public hearing and then someone says, "oh, I wish I had said something" so I want to make sure that I give everybody an opportunity who wishes to say something that they have that opportunity. There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 10:05p.m. Thank you very much. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 77 Given the lateness of the hour, I would like to simply adjourn this to the next available time slot, whether it's the next meeting ... I don't know what the agenda for that meeting is ... and not even begin discussion both of the site plan and the comments that we got from the public. Mr. Kanter — I think we can put it on the next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — The next meeting which would be ... actually, it's three weeks to the next meeting, it would be August 7th if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Kanter — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — You think we have ... can put it on that meeting? Mr. Kanter — I think so. Chairperson Wilcox — We can continue with our discussions. of the. site plan and our recommendation. Okay. That works. I look to all the representatives of Cornell, can you be back in three weeks? Or at least those who need to be here in three weeks can be back in three weeks? David's nodding his head, Shirley is being noncommittal but everybody else is nodding their head. Okay. Mr. Kanter — And meanwhile, continue with the submission of the Zoning Board Application because we still would be able to get you onto the August meeting, which... Chairperson Wilcox — Which would occur before the ZBA meeting later in the month. Okay. David, you're kind of representing Cornell. Is there anything you need from us tonight? Before you leave? Mr. Schlosser — No. Chairperson Wilcox —Okay, so we're ... we'll adjourn this to the meeting of August 7 th We've held the public hearing, so at that point we will discuss the proposal, the site plan, the recommendation to the Zoning Board, the special approval, public comments, etc., etc. Mr. Schlosser — Actually, one thought. In preparation for that meeting, do you. ..are you looking for us to respond to any comments or questions or are we just picking up from where we left off? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, there's been some discussion about the windsurfing club not being included in planning, I mean, I've heard some things ... If you want to respond, please do, if you decide not to respond, we may ask you questions anyways, okay. And certainly, the other issues, the landscaping, the contamination, I am reminded of the fact that during the ... when we did the initial sketch plan. review, we did, as a Board, bring up the issue of how the deck would be used. We haven't brought it up here yet because PB 7/17/07 Pg. 78 that's more of a site plan issue than an environmental review issue but we did bring that up because we were concerned about wedding receptions and other things and then someone has brought up the fact that the Development Office, I love that term, the Development Office, the Fundraising Office could use it. That's also a use which we particularly would not want to see and we were concerned when we saw the deck that that might be a use and therefore the noise and /or other potential issues.that come with it. So we will take that up during our discussion of the site plan review again. Board Member Conneman — Do you want a letter from the fire chief by this time? Mr. Schlosser — I've already got that down, we will have further discussions with him. Chairperson Wilcox — If we don't have a letter from the fire chief, we will leave the condition in the resolution as drafted. Again, we are only going for preliminary site plan approval here. There'll be numerous conditions and if that one hasn't been filled to our satisfaction, then we will leave that condition in as well as the other conditions. You all set? Board Member Hoffmann — I thought I saw you taking notes when I mentioned some more photos along route 34... Mr. Schlosser — I got that one too. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that would help ... and you have this opportunity to take care of it. Very good. See you in three weeks. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, if you would, we need to just do a couple more things, so as you file out, try to be relatively quiet. Minutes Approval of Minutes from June 26, 2007 Chairperson Wilcox -- I want to move approval of the minutes from June 26tH Board Member Hoffmann —When did we get them? I didn't find them... Chairperson Wilcox —They came.... Board Member Riha — They came in the packet. Chairperson Wilcox — I only moved June 26t ". Seconded by Rod Howe. All those in favor.... anyone opposed. ..Any abstentions... the motion is passed 6-0 -0. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 79 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 077 Minutes of June 26, 2007 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 17, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from June 26, 2007 and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Town of Ithaca Planning. Board approves the minutes, with corrections, to be the final minutes of the meeting on June 26, 20071 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS; None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed unanimously. move approval... where's the July 3rd minutes? Ms. Neilsen — They are 20 minutes away from... Chairperson Wilcox —So we don't have July 3rd ...That's right. Okay. Other Business Chairperson Wilcox — I want to remind everybody...training opportunities...a couple have come up recently in Geneseo, Hamilton, there's the NY Planning Federation in Saratoga...l remind everybody of the requirement of 4 hours of acceptable training. Most anything worthwhile is acceptable, I believe, to the Town. Any additional training you acquire over 4 hours can be carried over to next year, and that. must be done by the end of the year. Town picnic, August 3rd ... I'll be out of Town... On the next meeting, do we want to have an agenda item with regard to drafting, this Board recommending to the Town Board some action on the Pennsylvania /Kendal /high- density residential zone ... Does someone want to volunteer to draft some motion for consideration by this Board ... Or do we want to come in and try to put one together while we're here, which we can do. I mean, if someone would volunteer to draft something that we could start with, that would clearly make our lives easier. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 80 Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe we could all think about how one would word it and then cobble together something. Chairperson Wilcox — So, we'll come into the meeting and we'll spend, you know,.half an hour trying to word something... Board Member Howe — I won't be here, so ... I can't imagine trying to cobble something together.. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah well you realize, trying to put these things together with 7 or 8 of us, in a public setting, just takes for ever.... Board Member Thayer — It's not going to be easy,.. Chairperson Wilcox — It's not going to be easy,.. Board Member Hoffmann — In the old days, we used to make up our own resolutions, from scratch... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah and think of how much time was spent just doing that. As said, Staff makes us look so good, by... Board Member Thayer — They do... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so we want to put that on the agenda. As a discussion item. Mr. Kanter— So what is that? Consideration of a resolution to Town Board regarding.... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, regarding high-density ... the high - density . residential zone,.. Do you want to raise Briarwood at this point? Board Member Riha — When we want to discuss,. if we want to discuss it given the consultant's report and so on or just waiting till... Chairperson Wilcox That we have the Osterman ... I can't think of the gentleman's name... Mr. Kanter---: I can help you decide ... We met with the applicant this morning and agreed that at this point, the best approach would be for them to come in with kind of a follow - up to update the Board on what they've been doing, how what they're doing relates to the consultant's studies on the stormwater, we had a couple of suggestions for some changes to the plan that they might look at to keep some of the northern area further open and to discuss the letter regarding the Unique Natural Area, primarily. So, if I could, I would suggest on the August 21st meeting agenda, putting a sketch plan follow - up discussion on the Briarwood 11 proposal. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 81 Chairperson Wilcox — So this is sort of a, yeah, I hate to call it sketch plan, but it's sort of a... Mr. Kanter — Well, it's a follow -up discussion and some suggestions for additional changes in the plan. Board Member Riha -- But was there also the issue, we talked about last time, about whether there was new information, Jonathan, which is more ... Mr. Kanter — We can only get so much agenda description, but it would be...it could cover anything the Board wants to ask, anything the applicant wants to say, and anything that Mr. Sonnestuul and his team would like to address the Board with: Board Member Conneman — But it will be really,., like a preliminary ... no. .6 Mr. Kanter — It will be a follow -up discussion. There'll be Chairperson Wilcox —There'll be no action. Board Member Riha — But also, Susan Brock and Susan Ritter were talking last time about whether or not, ..they were going to...somebody was going to discuss whether or not this represented new... Ms. Brock — Well you only need to make that determination when you look at reassessing the SEQR. determination. At that point you have to look at what's new, what's not, and you consider the new information, along with any substantial changes to the project when you reassess the SEQR, but right now you're in the information gathering stage, so anybody can come and say anything they want to you. Some of it may old, some of it may be new, that's fine, that's appropriate. So we don't have to use that filter until later when you're actually reassessing the SEQR determination. Board Member Conneman — You say anyone... Including the public? Ms. Brock — If it's your pleasure to hear comments from the public, certainly, or if people want to address you during pers... Chairperson Wilcox — There will not be a public hearing. Ms. Brock — No, I'm not saying that, but I'm just saying, at any point, to be heard section and somebody wants to say something, just a from. Mr. Sonnestuhl and he submitted it, this doesn't preclude presenting information to you for your consideration. Board Member Hoffmann — Or sending a letter. whether it's person s you got the letter anybody else from PB 7/17/07 Pg. 82 Chairperson Wilcox — As is our practice when we hold sketch plan review, we will give the public a chance to speak. And frankly... Ms. Brock — It's not sketch plan thought, right? Chairperson Wilcox — Right, we're going to give it another name, but nonetheless, it won't be a legal public hearing but we will give the public a chance to speak, and you know what, it's silly to do otherwise, because then they can stand up in the first 5 minutes during the persons to be heard and they can regale you, so lets, as we've done for years that I've been on this Board, we always give the public a chance to speak when it's appropriate not only when it's necessary and legally mandated. Board Member Howe — Do you have any idea what else would be on the agenda on the 21 St or whatever,.. Mr. Kanter — On the 21st we have only one other item right now but it's a pretty large. one; it's the Cornell Animal Health Diagnostic Center over at the Vet School, which we saw a sketch plan of a while back. Chairperson Wilcox — Top of the hill ... Cauldwell Road, top of the hill? Mr. Kanter — Yes. So if you want to hear, on the next meeting, August 7t',4we actually did have, we had several small items, although as we found tonight, we thought we had several small items that became bigger items, so you never know. Chairperson Wilcox — Simple 2 -lot subdivision on Pennsylvania Avenue: Mr. Kanter — We've got a on Mitchell Street, we I stormwater ponds at the Taughannock Boulevard... recommendation on the sign variance for the lave a site plan modification to add fenc Overlook on West Hill and we have flower shop up as around the a mooring on Chairperson Wilcox — Those always take 2 hours....Susan sat through. Susan hasn't sat through a dock.... Mr. Kanter — However, this may be the first one we have ever sent hat complies with the setback requirements of all the zoning. It's strictly because it requires site plan and special permit. Board Member Conneman — Jon, what ever happened to that? That golf ... that mini golf ... because there's a for sale sign up there. Mr. Kanter— Yeah, their financing did not work out and so they have pulled out.. Board Member Conneman — I just wondered. PB 7/17/07 Pg. 83 Chairperson Wilcox — That's too bad. Mr. Kanter — I mean, there's an approved site plan if somebody else came along and wanted to do it. Board Member Howe — I won't be here on the 7 t Adjournment Meeting was adjourned upon motion at 10:19p.m. eft &, CTeputy Town Cle TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 17, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Jehovah's Witnesses Site and Building Renovations, 1201 Danby Road, 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan(.Approval and Special Permit for the proposed site and building renovations at the Kingdom Hall.of Jehovah's Witnesses located at 1201 Danby Road (NNYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -3- 1.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing one driveway, installing new asphalt on the existing driveway and parking area, improving drainage, installing new outdoor lighting, raising the existing canopy structure approximately 2 feet, installing new siding and windows, and several interior modifications. Ithaca Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Owner /Applicant; David Brewster, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Iacovelli 2 -Lot Subdivision, 240 Pennsylvania Avenue, 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC REARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -17 into two lots located at 240 Pennsylvania Avenue, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the existing lot (totaling +/- 18,625 square feet) into two new building lots (Lot 1 to consist of +/- 9,334 square feet and Lot 2 to- consist of +/- 9,291 square feet) for the construction of two new two - family houses. The existing house and garage will be demolished. Ralph. Iacovelli, Owner; Orlando Iacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Raponi /Iacovelli Lot Line Modification, 341 and 347 Coddington Road, 7 :25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed lot line modification at 341 and 347 Coddington Road, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal. involves the subdivision of +/- 1.22 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 -1 -14.2 to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 -1 -14.1. . Mary Raponi, Owner; Orlando Iacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent. 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca Beer Company — Silo, 606 Elmira Road. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed malt silo at the Ithaca Beer Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1, Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes the installation of a 32 +/- foot tail, 10 +/- foot diameter malt silo on the northeast side of the existing building. Yunis Realty, Owner; Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant; Dan Mitchell, Agent. 7 :45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Sailing Center, 1000 East Shore Drive. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Permit and a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to add educational uses and additional yard regulations to the Lakefront Commercial Zone in conjunction with the proposed construction of the Merrill 12, 13, 14 15: Family Sailing Center located at 1000 Bast Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2- 29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new 2 story, +/- 5,466 square foot sailing center with a +/- 805 square foot lakeside observation deck. The project will also include the construction of a new 20' x 60' boat storage shed, improvements to the gravel boat launch and parking areas, and new outdoor lighting and landscaping. Cornell.University, Owner /Applicant; Robert Blakeney, Cornell University and David A. Schlosser, AIA, Schopfer Architects, Agents, Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). Approval of Minutes: June 26`" and July 3"d,20.07 Other Business: Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, July 17, 2007 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, July 17, .2007, 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 Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed site and building renovations at the Kingdom. Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses located at 1201 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B),. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 3 -1.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing one driveway, installing new asphalt on the existing driveway and parking area, improving drainage, installing new outdoor lighting, raising the existing canopy structure approximately 2 feet, installing new siding and windows, and several interior modifications. Ithaca Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Owner /Applicant; David Brewster, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision. Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -17 into two lots located at 240 Pennsylvania Avenue, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing the existing lot (totaling +/- 18,625 square feet) into two new building lots (Lot 1 to consist of +/- 9,334 square feet and Lot. 2 to consist of +/- 9,291 square feet) for the construction of two new two - family houses. The existing house and garage will. be demolished. Ralph Iacovelli, Owner; .Orlando Iacovelli, Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed lot line modification at 341 and 347 Coddington Road, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the subdivision of ` +%- 1.22 acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 53 -1- 14.2 to be consolidated with the adjacent Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 53 -1 -14.1. Mary Raponi, Owner; Orlando Iacovelli; Applicant; Larry Fabbroni, Agent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration. of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed malt silo at the Ithaca Beer. Company located at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -2.1,. Light Industrial Zone. The proposal includes the installation of a 32 +/- foot tall, 10 +/- foot diameter malt silo on the northeast side of the existing building. Yunis Realty, Owner; Ithaca Beer Company, Applicant; Dan Mitchell, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Permit and a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a. proposed local law amending the Zoning Chapter of the Town of Ithaca Code to add educational uses and additional yard regulations to the Lakefront Commercial Zone in conjunction with the proposed construction of the Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Lakefront Commercial Zone. The proposal includes the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new 2 story, +/- 5,466 square foot sailing center with a +/- 805 square foot lakeside observation deck. The project will also include the construction of a new 20' x 60' boat storage shed, improvements to the gravel boat launch and parking areas, and new outdoor lighting and landscaping. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert Blakeney, Cornell University and David A. Schlosser, AIA, Schopfer Architects, Agents. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters. or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, July 9, 2007 . Publish: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 /�a �ay,,zjui� ƒfo�� Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street July 17, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You Q. n -�i u'ik � � ce Tczco d(l` YVLGI e+' b kaj�, ''aj- �W evl Uvck lc� i p ,) CAI` .� L ��-t �eqo�M u Address _7�1 YZcn� M ptAcA, Ny 1Ll �14 PL jjq �� I �r Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street July 17, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Address TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting Date of Publication: July 9, 2007 July 11, 2007 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11 `h day of July 2007, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 ��