The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2007-08-07FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann, Larry Thayer, Kevin Talty and Susan Riha, Alternate Board Member: Hollis Erb. STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way, Ithaca, New York Ann Carson, 811 Mitchell Street Gloria Howell, Clover Lane Robert Blakeney, Cornell University Facility Services Steve Buyers, Cornell University Environmental Compliance Office Alex Gander, 619 Caswell Road, Freeville Joel Harlan, Newfield, New York Stacey Whitney, 200 West Hill Circle Ann Carson, 811 Mitchell Street CALL TO ORDER: Ladies and gentlemen at 7:03 p.m., I hereby call the Tuesday, August 7`" meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to order. I wish to point out to those of you in attendance there are two fire exits to this room. There is the door to the audience's left, which is to my right, which I am pointing to at the present time. And there is the second fire exit to my left, which is to the audience's right. I hereby accept the secretary's affidavit of the posting and publication of the 5 public hearings that are scheduled for this evening. I am guessing that I need to officially state that Hollis Erb will be designated alternative for Rod Howe this evening and has all the rights and duties of a board member this evening rather than an alternate. Welcome everybody. When we get to the public hearing I will explain why the first item is a public hearing this evening, why we scheduled it that way. All righty. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox — The first agenda item is persons to be heard. If someone wishes to the address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, item, topic, or concern that is not on this evening's agenda, I may ask you to please step to the microphone, give us your name and address and we'll be most interested to hear what you have to say. Larry? PB 8/7/07 Pg 2 Larry Fabbroni, 1 Settlement Way, Ithaca, New York My name is Lawrence Fabbroni. I live at 1 Settlement Way. I am the engineer for Briarwood 11. 1 just want to say briefly that I am looking forward to meeting with the Board on the 21St and updating you on progress on this project. There has been a lot that has gone on, obviously, over a year's time, particularly on the drainage issues. There is a lot to tell you about our working with EPA, DEC and in response to the Town's drainage consultant. There is a lot to report in terms of our progress with Cornell and the gift to the Lab of Ornithology and so whatever I want to say, whatever the Town Board decides they need to look at separate from this board, I want to say however I can that I would like to proceed with the discussions with this Board as far as updating you on our progress, our attempts to not only meet, but exceed the needs of the neighborhood and bring you up to date on the 31 items that you sent me away with to perfect and July 2006. We have made a lot of progress on 30 of those 31 items. The 31,St being the Town Board's acceptance of the infrastructure items. And ,its been a long journey with the EPA and I mean with the Corp of Engineers and the DEC in particular. So I don't know how else ... there is a lot of discussion going on, ifs ands and buts about this project and you know, our attempt all along has been to work with the Town, to work with the staff. I came to the Town Board in February, you should know, and asked to meet with the Public Works Committee to discuss the drainage issues, which were kind of rising up at that point in time. They suggested that I work with the staff. worked with the staff and a month later they decided they didn't believe what the staff was saying to them. So it has been a little difficult bumpy road to improve our design beyond what even you saw a year ago. And having said that, I'll save the detail other than to say you have some recent information. We have had our consultant go out and look at the land and will respond to that recent information that you have as a part of that discussion as well. So thanks for your time and I hope to see you on the 21St Chairperson Wilcox — Thanks, Larry, As I said to you before the meeting started, we will have a discussion item at the end of this meeting as to whether to schedule you and the other group who would like to present some information about the UNA and the flora and fauna on the 21St. We will discuss that later and you can find out tomorrow. All right? Thank you, sir. Anybody else this evening who would like to address the Planning Board on something that is not on the agenda. Ann Carson, 811 Mitchell Street My name is Ann Carson. I live at 811 Mitchell Street, which is inside the Town of Ithaca bounds. And I don't know if this is the correct venue, but I thought as long as we are talking about signs and planning. I want to see if we can get deer signs put up on the stretch of road. Some of it is actually in the City, but starting from the intersection of Mitchell Street and Pine Tree Road and going westbound and then it would probably have to be within the City going eastbound because that whole area between there and the intersection where East Hill Plaza is, is a very specific area where deer cross and I think the ladies at the flower shop know this. We practically have names for them. There has never been a deer sign. I've lived there for almost 25 years and it just PB 8/7/07 Pg 3 seems, especially with the students and new arrivals coming very soon that that would be a good time to put it up. Chairperson Wilcox — I would ask that you contact a member of the Town Board. Ms. Carson — You know, I don't know where to contact them. I look in the phone book and there is like no numbers. Chairperson Wilcox — If you look in the phone book under Town of Ithaca, 273 -1747, is the phone number. Ms. Carson — I know there is a transportation manager. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you looking, well... Ms. Carson — For the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — Town of Ithaca. 273 -1747. Talk to the Town Clerk and then they can direct you whether you want to leave a message, send and email or whatever. Yes, Susan. You were going to say something. Ms. Brock — Fred Noteboom, the Highway Superintendent, might also be able to help her. My guess is that is probably the type of issue he deals with. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I was thinking let the Town elected officials know and they can refer it to Fred. That way they were aware of the issue as well. That is what I was thinking and if they were going to coordinate with the City, potentially, then that... Ms. Carson — Because I know this is technically a County road so that is. and...so called the County Highway Department and they ... just kind of got the brush off. thought I would go to whatever step B was. Chairperson Wilcox — Fred may get the brush off, too. Fred Noteboom, being the Town Highway Superintendent, Ms. Brock — He's pretty good. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, he's pretty good, but I'm not sure ... I'm just wondering if the County Highway Department might react better to an elected official rather than... Ms. Carson — That was my hope. To get an actual person to... Board Member Hoffmann — I would encourage you to contact Fred Noteboom, too. And I the phone book under Ithaca, Town Hall, it lists Planning Department, Clerk's Department and Highway Department. So that is a separate number for that. Fred Noteboom is very friendly and I don't think I would agree with what Fred said. PB 8/7/07 Pg 4 Chairperson Wilcox — What? Board Member Hoffmann — That it would be better to go via Town Board member think it is a good idea to speak to Mr. Noteboom, too. Ms. Carson — Okay. Well, that's why I am here. So I can find out. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Hello, Gloria. Gloria Howell, Clover Lane Hi. I'm Gloria Howell and I live on Clover Lane. I am here because I'm in favor of the size... Chairperson Wilcox — You can't speak now on that one. Ms. Howell — I can't say that? Chairperson Wilcox — No. You can't because that one is on the agenda. See, she snuck in by talking about deer signs. Ms. Howell — I can't say anything about this at all? Chairperson Wilcox — I have to make you wait until the public hearing. Ms. Howell — Okay. So we'll just wait for that? Chairperson Wilcox — I will ask you to wait patiently. Ms. Howell — Okay. I just wanted to be in favor of it anyway but ah... [laughter] Chairperson Wilcox — Gloria, and I believe I can call you Gloria, is a former member of the Town of Ithaca Town Board. A few years ago. Anybody else this evening? Very good. We will move onto the next agenda item at 7:12 p.m., which is: PUBLIC HEARING Continuation of 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, +/= 6,787 square foot sailing PB 8/7/07 Pg 5 center and 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 /Applicants Robert Blakeney, Cornell University and David A. Schlosser, AIA, Schopfer Architects, Agents. Chairperson Wilcox — For those members of the audience and those members of the Board, you may remember when we were here three weeks ago that we held a public hearing and closed it. It was identified that there was a minor defect in the public hearing notice having to deal with the square footage of the building. So in order to correct that small error, it was decided that we would hold another public hearing with the proper square footage, the revised square footage shown in the public hearing notice and that is why it is listed the way it is this evening. All righty. The floor is yours and you know the rules. Name and address, please. Professional address is always acceptable. Robert Blakeney, Cornell University Facility Services My name is Robert Blakeney. I'm with Cornell University Facility Services and I am the project manager for the sailing center on behalf of the Department of Athletics. Also with me this evening is the architect, David Schlosser of Schopfer Architects. We are prepared to proceed however you and the Board would like, Mr. Chairman. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a presentation based upon the new material provided or how would you like to proceed? Mr. Schlosser — Just briefly I would like to go over some of the supplemental material, unless you want me to backtrack at all. Chairperson Wilcox — No. I get a general no. We'll do that and then we'll give the public a chance to speak. Mr. Schlosser — I did want to go over a couple of the additional items that we submitted for clarification purposes and discuss those. One on the entrance slope mitigation. The ... we have made contact with the railroad. We have attempted contact with New York State DOT, 4 calls and no responses. We actually, ironically enough, got a better response out of the railroad, but it basically is a one -sided response. We sent them information. Chris is aware of it. We sent her copies of everything we contacted, or given them some time in the near future they were liable to funnel that information up or down to the appropriate people who will then come out on the site and see if the small mitigations that we have suggested can be done and if its their property, because they are not sure if it is their property or the state's. So when it comes to actually discussing that as part of the resolution, I guess the point we would like to make is that this really is an attempt that we are trying to make to make some minor mitigations with respect to that, but it really is not under our control. We will make every attempt, but would hate to see the project held up because of that if we can ... if our efforts fail, I guess. PB 8/7/07 Pg 6 With respect to landscaping. What we did ... there has been a number of suggestions as to additional, putting additional foliage on the site and what we would like to clarify, I guess, is that a bit of confusion and misunderstanding from our perspective as to, has been suggested, that we put some additional trees to the north of the building. As part of the view -sheds we also submitted some additional view - sheds, which were requested and I think what you can see is up until now we have been submitting photos that were basically taken in the fall and winter without leaves. The ones we've got here have the leaves on them and there actually is a tremendous amount of foliage around the site with respect to trees. Obviously this is this particular grouping, which has grown up is on State property. On the shoreline, on the entire shoreline of the sailing center parcel from the southern shore of the park right on out to the peninsula has anywhere from 3 to 5 foot high natural shrubs full all the way without break. And then between the proposed building, the existing building, and the proposed building and the park, there is actually some 15 to 20. foot high scrub trees that have grown up. What we are ... I guess confused about is adding additional trees to the site, which would obviously break up the viewshed even further when we are trying to maintain the viewshed and then also the purpose of the building is to try and to maintain views from the deck and from the building, north and south on the lake as well as avoiding the air - conditioning, we are trying to get from the window standpoint the natural ventilation. So if maybe we can discuss that and clarify it so we can decide whether it is really necessary and whether it needs to be part of the resolution. The other item, again, going down hill a bit here, but the ... these are basically the additional view -sheds we've added. Again, if there's any additional that you require for final, please let us know. We just took two angles, one heading north and one heading south a little closer to the building. You can see basically the view here, which is the location of the boat storage building and then the impact of the blue building, the new sailing center and once again you can see what happens with the trees that they are existing on the site to the north of it. This is the trees here, if you are heading from north to south, the proposed building, and then the storage shed at the boat storage shed at this location. Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that the colors of the buildings and the roofs of the buildings are different from the ones you have presented to us before. Does that mean there has been a change, or? Mr. Schossler — No. We were simply trying to put these things together very quickly and they are massing studies only. So it has no implications for color. They are for form function. They are computer located and the configuration is accurate. The location is accurate as well. It has no relevance to aesthetics. The aesthetics remain just as presented and I didn't bring the materials again, but they are the same materials as we submitted. They are actually posted on the drawings. Board Member Hoffmann — Thanks. PB 8/7/07 Pg 7 Mr. Schossler — The variances, I believe you are aware, we've made application for the variances for the boat storage building, side yard and front yard. Building area. I guess you have made a clarification on that. We've made a clarification on that. I guess from the perspective of the building, you can call it whatever you like I guess for planning purposes. We call it whatever we like for building New York State code and again our position is the building is 5,466 square feet, does not include the attic space, which is a mechanical attic and doesn't include the outside deck. But again, from a Planning Board perspective if you would like to call it 6,000- whatever, I guess as long as it doesn't impact our New York State Building Code implications. Mr. Blakeney — Yeah and on the documents those 3 square footages are indicated and if you sum them, then you get the number that you've indicated on your information including the document tonight, 6,787. 1 recall might be the number. Also, just a clarification. Recently the Ithaca Journal published a very nice article about the... Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute. I'll hold it up so everybody can see it. It says you are going to build the building. [laughter] Mr. Blakeney — 25,000 square foot was what was reported and the building is only about 5,500, slightly less than that. I contacted the Ithaca Journal and they printed a correction, I think on the ... that was in the Saturday paper and I believe they corrected it in the Monday paper. Mr. Schossler — If there are any discussions on water service, water tank, we submitted information. I think your memo basically clarified that along with the lighting as being compliant. I would like to turn this over briefly to Steve Buyers, Cornell University's Environmental Compliance Office, primarily to discuss this issue of the minerals in the soil and the issues that were brought up at the last meeting and open it for the Board for any questions you might have of Steve and the approach that we are going to take, both already by specification with respect to any mediation or activity on the site. Steve Buyers, Cornell University Environmental Compliance Office Hi. So I'm Steve Buyers from the Environmental Compliance Office at Cornell. Actually we are now the Office of Environmental Compliance and Sustainability. So moving with the times. I'm at 140 East Hill Plaza, which I think is 361 Pine Tree Road, Chairperson Wilcox - Welcome back. Mr. Buyers — So I was asked by the project team to review the analysis of soils on the site and I think my review was similar to ... I think the DEC had a look at the sample results as well. So what we have on site is we have some metals that are sort of consistent with background metals in the area. I think the Planning Board ... did they get a copy of the memo that I put together? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. PB 8/7/07 Pg 8 Mr. Buyers - Okay. Pretty much right in the middle of the range. So there is not really much evident of anything there. There is also some low levels of materials that are called polycyclic aerometric hydrocarbon, PAHs, and PAHs are usually indicative of past industrial activity, usually means you have unburned hydrocarbons from a power plant or something like that and there was a power plant in the area. The levels there are also low, but certainly its ... wouldn't be what you would find out in a rural area, but is pretty typical of place you find near a railroad, near a power plant, near a former industrial area. There isn't much we do with these level of materials. In fact a lot of the times if you try to do anything you make the matter worse, quite frankly, but what we recommended to the team was that when we excavate for the building that we basically use that material as subbase wherever we can. So we use as much as we can on the site. That is a pretty typical recommendation and that if we had to remove excess materials, spoil material from the site, that we basically landfill it because we are usually pretty cautious about taking that material anywhere else where it could become a liability for the University. So even though the levels are low, as a precaution, we take those and landfill them. So that is what we are recommending for this site. Chairperson Wilcox — When you say landfill them, do you take them to a special landfill? Mr. Buyers — No. They are not hazardous waste. They are not at that level that they are classified any different... they are not really classified as a particular waste requiring particular disposal, but we would just take them to a regular sanitary landfill and typically this kind of material they use for a daily cover because landfills otherwise have to excavate for that material so they find some benefit in having materials like this available because vermin don't attack it if it doesn't, its not...it doesn't stink. They will just use it as daily cover and integrate into the landfill as they build it. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? There are none. Mr. Buyers — Okay. I did want to clarify one more thing, too. There was a memo that I think you might have gotten from Matt Ramaki or ... did they get that copy, or no? Ms. Balestra — No. Mr. Buyers — I shouldn't have brought it up then I guess. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just ... I have a question while she is handing that out. You sent us ... actually there's a copy from you to Mr. Blakeney and at the very end when you list advice and recommendations you do say something about what will happen to excess soils, which is a little different from what you just said. Mr. Buyers — Well, lets see. Board Member Hoffmann — This doesn't say it will be taken to a regular landfill. PB 8/7/07 Pg 9 Mr. Buyers — It says shall be disposed of in a lined sanitary landfill. That is a regular landfill, basically. In New York State that is the same definition as...like Seneca Meadows or... Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Buyers — It means its not going to a construction demolition site. There are other less regulated landfills we are not going to take it to. We are requiring that it go basically to a lined landfill where it is more controlled. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Buyers — So the reason I brought up the other memo is... Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go ... hold on. Has everybody had a chance to read it? Board Member Thayer —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Eva is going to read it right now. I have a copy right here if someone wants to read it. Hold on for a sec. Okay. Mr. Buyers — So I just got this today. I hadn't seen it before, but it was inaccurate and I actually thought the Board had it so I want to make sure that in accuracy ... (not audible) ... and the first part of it talks about some difficulty in analyzing it because it's a mixture of material that is as low as 40 feet below the surface. That is not true. The report is pretty clear that they did structural testing with bore holes that went down as far as 40 feet, but all the environmental testing was in the top layer, which is zero to four feet. So it's a composite from zero to four feet, not zero to forty and I'm sure if Mr. Ramaki had realized that he would have thought that was the appropriate area to take those kind of samples. So in the end he says he is not concerned anyway, but I just thought it was important to clarify that the samples were taken in the upper part of the ground, not down deep where you wouldn't expect to find anything. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go, what's unclear to me is, is this Esther's ... Esther wrote this. Ms. Balestra — Esther wrote that. Chairperson Wilcox — Whose comment is it that certainly it shouldn't become fill for a childcare center. Ms. Balestra — I believe she is paraphrasing something the DEC representative said to her. Chairperson Wilcox — Why would the DEC representative say that? PB 8/7/07 Pg 10 Mr. Buyers — Well, obviously if you have any kind of contaminants, the biggest risk is a child playing in it and eating it. I guess that is what that refers to. I couldn't ... I can only speculate. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I'm sitting here trying to go ... you shouldn't put it in a childcare center, but it can go in a regular sanitary landfill. I'm just...and maybe that is the way the rules are written. Ms. Brock —Yeah. They are. Chairperson Wilcox — Its not bad enough to go to the landfill, but you wouldn't want to ... okay. Ms. Brock — Yeah. A childcare center is considered the most sensitive receptor in a way. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Buyers — I also suspect that Mr. Ramaki was thinking that it could have been a diluted sample if it went down 40 feet and was mixed together: So he might have thought the levels could have been 10 times as high basically. That's why I wanted to point it out because the samples are at the surface layers as appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you leave, any other questions for Mr. Buyers? Board Member Thayer — I'm all set. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you for coming. Mr. Schossler — Related to that, when we get to the resolution I think item g on that which basically discusses this particular item we might want to discuss the actual language because I think the language suggested here I think is based upon the information at previous meetings and not reflective of the most current information that Steve has brought. So I don't have anything else at the moment. Answer any questions I guess. Mr. Blakeney — With respect to item g, I might want to call on Steve to further comment about construction protocol and testing and that sort of thing, but ... Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, do you want to report on a meeting you had with the County with regard to the letter we got that we had in front of us three weeks ago with their recommendation? Ms. Brock — Yes. The County was concerned that the proposed zoning language permitted all types of educational institutions and did not require any relationship to what the County viewed as water dependent activities. They thought that was PB 8/7/07 Pg 11 inconsistent with the Town's lakeshore commercial zoning purposes, which state, in our Code that the purpose of the lakeshore commercial zone is to provide areas in the Town for coherent development of commercial facilities that are uniquely related to the shorefront of Cayuga Lake and are not inherently incompatible with adjacent residential zones. They felt also that consistent with some of the County planning efforts that have been going on that the proposed zoning language should be changed to require water .dependent educational activities and not a broad range of educational activities. Cornell requested a meeting with the County Planning Department about that letter and Chris Balestra and I also attended. At the meeting, certain New York State case law was discussed with the County Planning Department, which I was aware of, and was going to be discussing with you tonight any way, which is the New York Courts presume that educational institutions provide an inherent public benefit and that consequently municipalities cannot completely exclude educational uses from residential or commercial zones because to do so would basically mean that a municipality has found that there is ... that the educational use is not compatible with the public health, safety, and welfare. And the courts have said they provide a public good so you cannot make that finding as a matter of law. This doesn't mean that municipalities are powerless to impose any restrictions on educational activities, but the restrictions must be reasonable conditions related to specific harms that are perceived from that particular use. For example, if you feel there will be unacceptable impacts from traffic or other disruptions to the community, you can impose reasonable conditions. So anyway, this issue was discussed with the County and as a result of the meeting, the County felt that if in fact the language were changed to perhaps not be as comprehensive as the County had wanted that they would then revise their 239 letter and indicate support for the language. I had actually, before that meeting, drafted some revise language anyway in light of the County's concerns trying to accommodate the interest in the case law, but at the same time also trying to stay with language that was consistent with purposes clause of our lakefront commercial zone and have some type of relationship to the lakefront and so you have on the desks in front of you tonight some revised language that the County has now issued a letter about saying we have no problem with this proposed local law as it has been revised; it...this addresses all of our concerns and Cornell, I think somewhat reluctantly, has said that they can live with this language at least for now. So the change is in section 2 of the proposed law and it somewhat narrows the types of educational facilities that are allowed to institutions of higher learning because in reality there is only one parcel in the Town that is lakefront commercial and its this particular parcel. So I don't think we really need to worry about other public or private schools. So now the language is, "institution of higher learning facilities principally dedicated to water related research, education and recreational activities, excluding dormitory accommodations". This is broader than what the County had originally proposed. They had wanted it to be water dependent and we have changed that to water related because that is a broader. concept. Water dependent really means a dock, or something that absolutely has to have water for it to function, but there are a number of activities that could happen at this site that are water related such as observation of birds and things like that that I think people would feel or water related but not water dependent and we put in the words "principally dedicated" too, which means not every activity of the educational institution has to be water related. PB 8/7/07 Pg 12 We put in "principally dedicated" too because of this case law, which says if you are going to impose conditions they must be reasonable and if we required every single activity on the site to be water related we could run afoul of the case law especially when you consider the fact that this zone also permits hotels or motels, club houses or lodges and does not have any restriction on those. It may be that these other uses should come out of the law. That is something we will talk about with the Town Board, but we felt that this language would be acceptable to the Town Board, be consistent with the purposes clause of our lakefront commercial zone. The County was satisfied with the language and Cornell, I think... believes that this language will permit with them to go forward with the sailing center as they envision it. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Susan. Board Member Hoffmann — I am glad to hear that this was worked out. Board Member Conneman — I have a question, though. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Board Member Conneman — First of all, I would like Al to comment on what happened to the windsurfers because it seems to me that has been an argument that we have heard over the years, but the second issue is, can you have, in this facility, what kind of parties? What kind of celebrations? What kind of noise and light and noise pollution might you have in this? In other words, do they plan to use the facility to have weddings and this is in response to the public last time that raised the question about what might go on beside the water activities. And I believe the expression was event planners like unusual sites for parties for rich donors or some language of that type. Ms. Brock — If you believe they will have activities that cannot be adequately addressed by the Town's existing outdoor lighting law and noise ordinance then you should ask questions about that and if you feel that the types of activities that are going on cannot be adequately addressed then that is something you can discuss. Board Member Conneman — Well, I ask the question then. Board Member Riha — But what you are saying from before since it is already zoned to have hotels and restaurants and clubs, you couldn't say that Cornell couldn't do that or it would seem like it was unreasonable. Ms. Brock — I believe we could not do that. Yes. With the laws that currently exists... Board Member Riha - ...you can have a club there. Board Member Conneman — But that opens up a whole can of worms in my opinion. PB 8/7/07 Pg 13 Ms. Brock, —. So if you believe there are specific impacts from the proposed uses of this facility that are different from the other ... the impacts that other uses are allowed or if you believe there is an especially sensitive receptor that needs to be accommodated we should get that on the record. We should get the facts about that and you can determine how and whether to address that if you think the Town's other laws don't adequately address those issues. There is case law saying that catering events, for example, are considered an accessory use of educational institutions. So they are considered to be in furtherance of their educational purposes and I do not believe you could flat out prohibit those unless you can show there are certain impacts from those that cannot be adequately mitigated. Board Member Hoffmann — Susan, could you repeat what kind of event you were just talking about? Ms. Brock — Catering events is what the case law was talking about. That case was specifically about weddings and other types of functions. The Appellant division held that that is something that is related to the educational function. Board Member Conneman — So wedding is an educational function. Ms. Brock — The lower court did not feel that, but the Appellant division said yes. The court said educational institutions are generally permitted to engage in activities and locate on their property facilities for such social, recreational, athletic and other accessory uses as are reasonably associated with their educational purpose and then the court said without any discussion of their reasoning in particular, the activities at issue in this case are a permitted educational uses of the property and it was in that case that dealt with catering events. The lower court decision gave some of the details, not the Appellant division. Events such as weddings, dances, balls, and parties. Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, as Susan has pointed out, the zone allows restaurants and restaurants are going to have parties. Board Member Conneman — We did discuss this once before when they proposed the Remington. Ms. Brock — As I said, if you feel that what they are proposing can't be adequately addressed by the noise ordinance and lighting law, then you need to get that information from them. You need to find out from them specifically what they are proposing and have a discussion on the record about if you think that the Town's laws can adequately mitigate these things or not. You are not completely powerless, but in light of the fact that right now our law does allow these other uses, which presumably would have very similar impacts, I think it might be very difficult for the Town to show that this is a reasonable condition. Chairperson Wilcox — And we can't say we don't like it therefore you can't. We certainly can't say that. PB 8/7/07 Pg 14 Ms. Brock — No. I mean I think you have to say there is a specific harm and this is the harm and this is how we need to mitigate it. Board Member Hoffmann — As we are talking about this, what comes back to my mind is remembering what a lot of the people said when we were discussing the Remington and what the affects of that would be on the people who live along the lake and the neighborhood there in general and that is noise. And I remember very, very clearly and it resonated with me because I grew up on the water and I know how sound .travels across water. People were talking about the noise that they would hear from that restaurant on the Inlet Island. I forget the name of it now. Board Member Thayer — Boat Yard, Board Member Hoffmann — The Boat Yard Grill. sitting outside on the deck, not just having dinner, music and there is laughing and loud talking ar properties along East Shore. So that kind of thing social events like weddings and receptions and so for me and I don't know if the noise ordinance that of that sort of problem. Right. Well they often have people but often having parties and there is d it just, travels right across to the would very easily happen if you had on. So that would be a big concern we have would be able to take care Ms. Brock — Its worked pretty well for student parties. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, we are going to talk later on today, I think, about Pennsylvania Avenue, Kendall Avenue situation and I don't know if the people who live there feel that it does work. Ms. Brock — They have come ... maybe it wasn't before this board, maybe it was the Town Board, and have said that it has made a very big difference. It actually has. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Board Member Riha — Otherwise it sounds like you are talking about a zoning issue that people that maybe this area shouldn't be zoned commercial. Chairperson Wilcox — To allow. To allow restaurants. Board Member Riha — Right, but it sounds like the County wants it to stay commercial. That was ... right? As I understand it? That was their argument. Ms. Brock — Well, they want the uses to be consistent with uses that are tied to the lakefront. It's the Town's decision whether it is commercial or residential or something else in terms of zoning, but they feel there is very limited lakefront and that the uses should be tied to the water. PB 8/7/07. Pg 15 Board Member Riha — But it seems like the zone already allows hotels, restaurants, clubs. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but maybe the point is that wasn't thought through carefully enough and maybe has to be changed. Board Member Riha — I agree ... I mean that may be the case even, but that seems more like a change in the zoning than... Chairperson Wilcox — Hollis, you have been waiting patiently. Alternate Member Erb — I am interested in knowing whether wordings such as no amplified music on site or shutting parties down an hour after dusk would be legally appropriate. And I'm not suggesting those specifically, although, I guess I actually am in a way in the sense that I know that we have in other instances said that there would be no amplified sound at all generating from some other projects. Now this obviously has to have amplified sound, the Clocksons in a boat for example, but that's why I said perhaps no amplified music because the primary intention here is not to be a party site. And because of light spillage directly across the lake into those neighborhoods in addition to the sound spillage I am wondering about the possibility about putting a time limit at night where we can say after a certain time there would ... the party would also shut down. I picked an hour after dusk just as a starting point. Board Member Riha — From what I heard Susan say, you would have to be willing to argue you would do that for any restaurant or club. Ms. Brock — Right. When you restrict the hours of operation you typically need to consider al the uses that are allowed and think does this pose a special problem. Alternate Member Erb — But this is a unique zone with a unique problem in that noise and light immediately spill out across the lake. Ms. Brock — The resolution last month had some sample language approving or giving a special permit and site plan approval to the project but tied it to the letter from Al Gander that we had in our packets last month where they talked about their operations policy that said that only events that are educational mission related will be permitted at the sailing center. Outside groups will not be permitted to use it, will conduct no outdoor functions after dark other than closing operations, fireworks, and outdoor musical performances or amplified music that can be heard outside the boundaries of the premises will not be allowed. So its possible that the approvals could be tied to their... Board Member Talty — That would work. Board Member Thayer — Can we put that in the resolution? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. PB 8/7/07 Pg 16 Board Member Thayer — They are saying it. If they're saying it. ..they're volunteering it. Chairperson Wilcox — Shirley, are you comfortable? You are sitting back there. I just want to ... okay. You'll come forward when necessary. Ms. Brock — So we could put that type of language back into this because the resolution that came in your packet this month was revised a bit and so that particular language I am referring to from last month is not isn't in here right now. Board Member Riha — This is the kind of thing we would expect from anybody in that whole strip? That they couldn't have parties outside. That they couldn't have amplified music. You can't say presumably that Cornell can't do that, if you are going to allow the next door neighbors. Ms. Brock — Well, they are the only people that occupy that zone. Board Member Riha — I thought there were some houses down there. Chairperson Wilcox — Not in the lakefront commercial. Board Member Riha — It kind of seems strange that in the lakefront commercial you are restricting all these activities that you wouldn't restrict if somebody wanted to have a party and they amplified the sound... Ms. Brock — Its true. People can have a party on their dock. Board Member Riha — I mean no one is going to say you can't have a party on your dock after 9:00. Ms. Brock - I think that the rational basis... Board Member Thayer — But you can't violate the noise ordinance. Board Member Riha — You could say Cornell can't break the noise ordinance. That's a given. Ms. Brock — Right. And that is what I suggested at the beginning. If you feel our noise ordinance can't deal with it, you can look at other ways to control it. I guess... Board Member Riha — To me it just seems a little strange to put more restriction in the commercial district that you are trying to encourage restaurants and clubs and so on than you would in a residential. PB 8/7/07 Pg 17 Board Member Hoffmann — But I think the reason is, is that there is a potential for many more such uses in a commercial property than in a residential property. I mean most people don't have a couple of parties every week. Board Member Riha — Students renting housing ... I ... so ... I don't know. I just think ... maybe I'm looking at this in the wrong way, but it just seems like we are lucky to get a group like Cornell in who aren't going to be doing... probably creating much noise compared to if somebody comes in and does clubs and restaurants, which right now there is nothing that would restrict that from happening, right? Chairperson Wilcox — One of the issues that the Town has had is people renting lakefront houses for the weekend and making lots of noise. Board Member Hoffmann — But that is almost a commercial use, which shouldn't happen in a residential area. That is a problem when some landlords rent their houses out for a lot of money to people in a way that is disturbing to the neighbors. We have talked about that in other places. Chairperson Wilcox — Codes and Ordinances. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Maybe something has to be done about that, too. But that really is an abuse, I think. Chairperson Wilcox — Are we generally comfortable with the language in the letter provided to us by Cornell University in terms of their own self- restrictions? Alternate Member Erb — Yes. Board Member Thayer — They are voluntary. Alternate Member Erb — I would be happy if we were limited to that letter. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. General sense here? [general concurrence] Chairperson Wilcox — Though Susan's point is well made. We would wind up restricting their property more so than... potentially more so than the residences, but there is the potential for a bigger impact here as well. While everybody is sitting here, any other questions before I give the public a chance? Board Member Conneman — I would like ... we had a young lady here the last time who passionately gave a speech about windsurfing. I'm not a windsurfer, but (.wondered if Al would answer that question for us because this came up years when we were doing... PB 8/7/07 Pg 18 Board Member Thayer — Well, the lack of storage for their... Board Member Conneman — Yeah. The lack of storage. The fact that they would be limited in their use. It seems to me that windsurfing is a educational activity as much as lots of other things. Alex Gander, 619 Caswell Road, Freeville Alex Gander, 619 Caswell Road, Freeville. I am a client for this project. Marie Garrett, I believe is the name of the woman, President of the windsurfing club. She has talked to me on several occasions and I assured her that we would continue to allow her to use the small structure that they are storing all their equipment in and using it as a staging zone for their equipment. That I intended at some point to reinstitute board sailing as an educational class. I am not doing it right now, but I will sometime in the future. And that she could be assured that I would do my best to support her and the club. I cannot give her any exact details as to what that support will be, but I ask her to trust me. I just...its too much of an unknown at this point as to how the facility is going to generate use and whether I can accommodate them. They are primarily looking for an expansion of storage opportunity and I said it is very possible when we build the storage facility that I could incorporate them into the storage facility, but everything is pretty much up in the air at this point and I couldn't really give her any specifics. Does that help? Board Member Conneman — But you will try to accommodate her? Mr. Buyers — I will. Alternate Member Erb — Are they currently in the shed? Mr. Buyers — They are. Chairperson Wilcox — Are they an official Cornell club? Mr. Buyers — I think they are registered with student activities. Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Does that mean they get funding from Cornell? Mr. Buyers — I'm sure they get funding. Board Member Conneman — They get sponsorship anyway. I think anyway. That's how it goes. Thanks. Mr. Buyers — Your welcome. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else at this point? Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I have a little bit concern about the response to the questions about the slope at the entrance and not being able to mitigate that because PB 8/7/07 Pg 19 the University doesn't have any control over it and the same about controlling the tree and shrub growth along the railroad because the University doesn't have control over that. That is a very easy way to get out of trying to do something about it, but. I think that is something that has to be discussed with the people who own those other properties and settled before a project moves ahead. Mr. Schossler — We made several points that need to be clearly understood. A railroad elevation cannot move. The road cannot move. Our engineers have been out there. Cornell's engineers have been out there and the only mitigation that can be done to help the grade difference between those two points is to take a little bit of a dip out between the two and Cornell has indicated to this Board that they are willing to do that. It is not on Cornell's property so we have to have the permission and has been confirmed with the railroad that the work, if it is to be done, cannot be done by Cornell's people. It has to be done by railroad approved, certified, either employees or contract people. We are trying to get their permission and I guess all I can do is tell you that we have made contact. We have given them all the information that they have asked for. We have photographed that particular area virtually from 15 different locations and we are trying to get that approval, but I don't see how we can commit to something that isn't in our control. And I think that is what I have tried to express. Board Member Thayer — I think our only concern about that was the fact that some of the fire trucks couldn't get in there. Otherwise, who could care less about the cars. They are going to get in and out okay. There is plenty of scrape marks on there already where the lower cars scrape as they are going on it. So... Mr. Schossler — And I think that was made perfectly clear to us at the last meeting. We are trying to get a clarification from the fire department on that. We did have a meeting with them in which they basically discussed how they would fight a fire there and at that time they indicated to use verbally that they had no intention of ever bringing a ladder truck in there and I think the concern that was expressed subsequently to that in a letter referenced specific to the ladder truck. So I'll try to get a clarification on that. We are putting the sprinkler system and all that sort of think and they can get pumper trucks in there and we are putting a hydrant on the site. And it is only a 2 -story building. Board Member Thayer — So they don't really need the ladder truck anyway. Mr. Schossler — No. I won't say that. I mean that is for them to say and be specific, think that is what was suggested between preliminary and final we need to get that letter and clarification. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. You were making a point. We can't do this. We can't do that. Well, I was going to say you can't build until we have that letter from the fire department. Mr. Schossler —Absolutely. PB 8/7/07 Pg 20 Chairperson Wilcox — And that's the issue. The slope is the symptom... Board Member Riha — So Fred, the issue is because you already have a one -story building so they must already have a plan for the building that is up. But the issue is now that it is going to be 2 stories that makes a difference. Mr. Schossler — Well. One it is a new building. Its larger gross square footage and its 2 stories and has public assembly because of the size of the space that requires the sprinkler system. So obviously by putting a sprinkler system in there it vastly ... the fire safety aspects have vastly improved and then also getting a hydrant on site, which doesn't exist right now. So both of those and that was the Assistant Chiefs primary concern. Board Member Thayer — Right. Mr. Schossler — That the fire truck ... again, we had a couple of discussions with them with respect to that and we will get a clarification between preliminary and final and we are fully aware of that need. Chairperson Wilcox — And there is a condition in the resolution as drafted with respect to that. Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — My point is that I think these things have to be worked out and I understand that they take time, but I don't see how we can... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. What has to be worked out? Board Member Hoffmann — The problems that exist, which cannot be mitigated because they are not under Cornell University's control. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So we have dealt with the slope. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't know if we have really dealt with it because it is not just fire trucks. Lets assume that other emergency vehicles have to get there. Lets assume that there are such events as we have been talking about where there are large groups of people there for receptions and such and there could be fire. Maybe a small fire truck could come in and take care of it. There could be somebody who gets sick and there could be a boat accident of some kind. Board Member Riha — Eva, that was why I asked the question because all those things could happen right now. There are lots of people down there all the time. Board Member Hoffmann — It is ... for more people to be there after the new building is built. PB 8/7/07 Pg 21 Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is not ambulances. The issues is not pumpers. The issue is the big ladder truck. Board Member Thayer — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — They can get in there now. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Board Member Thayer — That's not a problem. Board Member Hoffmann — But I still think that it would be better and easier if there were some attempt to try to make that slope a little easier to negotiate and I was wondering if it couldn't be done on the land toward the lake from the railroad. Mr. Schossler — It can't physically happen. The issue is hard to describe. Basically you've got a fixed position up here. You've got a fixed railroad and that's the incline. Mr. Blakeney — Yeah. The problem is between the railroad and between the highway. Mr. Schossler — If it could be resolved on the asphalt on the park or whatever that would be such an easy solution. Board Member Hoffmann — Now the other issue that I was talking about was the trees and you showed us on the photographs there, I think they are down now. The new photographs you sent along for us, which are, I believe you said on State land. That's right. There's that large tree there, which has some shrubbery around the base of it and I assume that some of that might be cleared by the people who own the land, but I'm not sure of that. I mean from a viewpoint of view, the trees okay. It's the shrubbery that goes around the trunk of the tree that blocks the view. I see, I mean, I heard you saying that sort of judicious plantings of trees near the building would be a very good thing because it provides some shade and cooling. I think that is what you said anyway. Mr. Schlosser — No. That's not what I said. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Could you say what you meant because that is how I interpreted what you said? Mr. Schlosser — I said that basically trees ... what we are doing is basically... what we have indicated to you is we have windows which basically are picking up the breezes off the lake for our cooling and any trees would interfere with that airflow. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I heard you say that, but then you also said something about shading. Mr. Schlosser — My point was not to put trees there. PB 8/7/07 Pg 22 Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So that is all you meant then. Anyway, my main concern is that you say you cannot do anything about what grows on land which doesn't belong to the University, but which obviously has impact here and it defects your project. So I am wondering if you couldn't negotiate to have, to work something out with the owners of this property, where the trees and shrubbery grows along the road and the railroad, too. Board Member Talty — Eva, I think that the railroads have certain laws and rules and regulations where no trees, no shrub, no anything can come within X amount of feet of the railroad rails. Because I see them come by all the time with cars. Right? Mr. Schlosser — As I say, New York State DOT is the same way. Basically, they have a maintenance program. In fact, if you look historically at the photos we have taken, DOT has actually cleared most of the scrub brush out of their right -of -way. Board Member Talty — So I think it is a moot point to try and negotiate with the and the DOT and trying to put shrubs up when they are trying to cut them down, or whatever. The other thing is I think that the tree blocks the view. Board Member Thayer — It does. Well, the shrub around the base of it. Board Member Talty — I think the whole thing should be taken out. railroad or trees Board Member Hoffmann — I think that the shrubbery around the base, if you take that out you would see through the trunk and there would just be the crown of the tree, which is up above the hillside. Board Member Talty — Well, I would say that they have to majorly maintenance the tree to make sure you can see through it at least 15 feet up. At least. I mean if you...l mean, no offense, but I wish they would take all the trees out. Board Member Thayer — It blocks a lot ... I mean that tree blocks more view than ... (not audible). Board Member Talty — I mean I can think of 100 trees that I wished were cropped around the lake because it is interfering all the time with the... Board Member Hoffmann — You are right. Vegetation needs to be maintained. Alternate Member Erb — When I read the minutes of the last meeting, it looked like Mr. Wrong from East Shore Drive was not concerned about these trees. He was asking for a little bit of additional vegetation on the north side of the building before it approaches the grassed area. His concern, as I understand it from these minutes was... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. Yeah. Okay. PB 8/7/07 Pg 23 Board Member Thayer — What do you hear? Chairperson Wilcox — A high pitch. Board Member Thayer — When you get old you don't hear that stuff. Board Member Hoffmann — Its gone now. Chairperson Wilcox — Its gone now. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Alternate Member Erb — His concern was something to interrupt the north wall appearance a little bit and that doesn't have to be a mass of trees, but it might be something that we could talk about. Chairperson Wilcox — The resolution as drafted has something in there which addresses that, which breaks up the mass if you will. Alternate Member Erb — Yes. Mr. Schlossler — And again, its hard some times to look at the landscape plans, but there is a grouping of pines, really, right at the corner, which actually and that's the northeast corner of the building and that actually is part of the landscape plan. Now those are not massive growing trees. Again, they were 8 foot... Alternate Member Erb — That's fine. Mr. Schlosser — ...type things that can be controlled and basically are not higher than the building. Alternate Member Erb — They're in the plan. I think that is very appropriate and I think it addresses some of the issue of just big walls. Chairperson Wilcox — Now, the resolution as drafted says submission of revised landscaping plans showing more shade trees in the immediate area north of the proposed sailing center and preservation of existing established trees. Alternate Member Erb — Eight foot is not that. Eight foot is something that just softens the wall. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the plantings don't have to be trees and shrubs either to change the impact of a very large wall. It can be things like vines growing on a wall. So they don't have to grow out away from the wall and block any views. It could be some of that or it could be very narrow columnar trees. PB 8/7/07 Pg 24 Board Member Thayer — It probably should say something like buffer should be there rather than shade trees. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we know where that language came from? Ms. Balestra —Staff. Chairperson Wilcox — Staff. Can you speak for staff? Ms. Balestra — I can. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Ms. Balestra — Staff didn't ... they weren't completely married to the idea of having shade trees. They thought it would just be more appropriate to soften the impact on the northern side of the building. Shade trees, which is the language, suggested language that they came up with can be modified as the Board wishes or deleted. Chairperson Wilcox — Showing sufficient plantings that mitigate the impact of the north face.. . Board Member Thayer — Vegetative buffer of some sort. Chairperson Wilcox — And that is the intent here. Not necessarily to provide shade, but to simply in some way break up the mass of the north side of the building. Ms. Brock — Well, I think of a vegetative buffer more of a strip... Chairperson Wilcox — A strip of land dedicated to... Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I do, too. Buffer maybe is not the right word. Ms. Brock — And here, I think we really want something that is more related to the facade itself. So why don't we just say showing...) think Fred's language... sufficient vegetation.. . Board Member Talty — To mitigate ... is good. Chairperson Wilcox — Columnar. There's a good word. Columnar. You don't see that word very often. Ms. Brock — To mitigate the impact of the north side of the proposed sailing center building. Board Member Thayer —That's good. PB 8/7/07 Pg 25 Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe you could add... Board Member Riha - ...wasn't that Cornell's main concern? That they not block the view on the north side. Alternate Member Erb — Without blocking the windows. Ms. Brock — Well, this is going to be a plan that they are submitting. So presumably, they are not going to suggest vegetation that blocks their windows and this is also subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. So he can make sure there aren't other unintended negative consequences that come out of this. Alternate Member Erb — And words like softening the visual appearance are in our minutes now. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes ... its also possible... Board Member Hoffmann — But that doesn't help. It has to be in the resolution. Alternate Member Erb — Okay. Ms. Brock — Well, I think saying sufficient vegetation to mitigate the impact...why don't we say to mitigate the visual impact of the north side of the proposed sailing center building? Board Member Hoffmann — Susan, could you add sufficient vegetation, including vines,... Ms. Brock — Well, do you want to specify they have to have vines. Board Member Hoffmann — No... Board Member Talty — Let them come back. Board Member Thayer — They are going to bring it to us. Chairperson Wilcox = Hopefully they will bring it back to us before we ... for final. Board Member Thayer —Yeah. Right. Alternate Member Erb — But if we are talking about softening the visual impact of sidewalls, I would like to raise the west facing sidewall of the storage shed, which is a 20 by 60 foot uninterrupted wall that will be completely visible to the lake. Board Member Hoffmann — But that one has a lot of doors on it, as I remember. PB 8/7/07 Pg 26 Alternate Member Erb — No. I think the east wall has doors on it. Mr. Schlosser — Towards the lake? Alternate Member Erb — Yes. Mr. Schlosser — Its 2 feet off the water and there is basically a concrete retaining wall there. Chairperson Wilcox — Is it the one on the floor. I'm not sure that the one on the floor is the one that best shows... Alternate Member Erb — I know the building where I'm talking. I thought that the doors were on the east side, not the west side. Mr. Walker — Its up against the bank on the east side, I believe. Mr. Schlosser — There are doors on the east side. There's doors on the south as well or south there's access doors you can rent. There is no room for foliage on that side and actually you need to understand that basically in front of it is basically sailboats and a variety of boats and everything else. Alternate Member Erb — I completely understand and I am not talking about trees and a lot of shrubs, but we have had buildings... there are other buildings in Town that are faced with a very narrow planter box that is available to them and we have still asked them to put some narrow plantings or vines or something to soften the appearance of a wall next to a parking lot, for example. And I looked at this and I didn't really see it as being any different. I'm thinking if I am out there on the lake or looking across the lake that it is a big blank wall and not very attractive. Board Member Talty — When you are looking from the lake you are looking at the doors. What I think you want ... if you want any vegetation at all is from the road. Isn't that what we are saying. Because the road and the lake are your entrance points. Alternate Member Erb — The road won't see it. Chairperson Wilcox — The road won't see it because of the way its set down Board Member Talty — All right so it's a moot point. Because from the lake I mean that is where all the boats are stored. Right now it is 3 sides of entrances. Alternate Member Erb — I'm looking at this plan and the blank wall is west elevation and maybe I'm misreading but I took that to be the view from the lake. Right here. [several talking at once] PB 8/7/07 Pg 27 Alternate Member Erb — It can't possibly be the road because if all these doors are on the lake edge then the doors open and there is a 2 foot dropoff off that curb. Mr. Schlosser — You are correct. That is the view from the lake. Now a couple of the things that basically we can give you photographs of. This is heavily foliaged right here as is everything out here, 4 or 5, 6 feet. I mean you will not see this shed from the lake. The only place you are going to have a view of that wall is within the marina and I think we can visually demonstrate that for you between now and the other...) will also take a look at this and I have it as an item. Alternate Member Erb — That wasn't obvious to me, Mr. Schlosser, when I looked at it. Mr. Schlosser — It wouldn't be because we didn't show the foliage on the drawing. Alternate Member Erb — And again, I just looked at that and that was ugly. Board Member Hoffmann — What about from Stewart Park? Would one see in at that angle from Stewart Park or from the southern part... Mr. Schlosser — No. We showed you a photograph from Stewart Park. I think you have very good eyesight to see it in there. Chairperson Wilcox — I have last week's materials... David, do you have the view from Stewart Park by chance? Where did you find it? [several talking at once] Board Member Hoffmann — Here the red stands out a little better than in your photo there. One would see the building here. There wouldn't be any trees blocking it from that view, but I think the color of it is not going to be as light as is shown here. Its going to be a darker red, right? So it probably will blend in fairly well. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I give the public a chance to speak? Board Member Thayer —Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox Gentlemen, you can have a seat. Ladies and gentlemen, we are running a little long, aren't we? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing this evening. If you wish to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item, we invite you to the microphone. We ask that you give us your name and address and we would be most interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Joel, make it short or stay on topic. Joel Harlan, Newfield, New York I'm Joel Harlan. I'm from Newfield. I sure like this...the way its going with this building. I think you should continue on. Instead of criticizing it, make it grow. Make it look (not PB 8/7/07 Pg 28 audible). There's a lot of other big buildings and houses like NYSEG, Miligan Station up there that makes the lake look bad. There are quite a few other places up there. A lot of big other things. This is just a small little, teeny building and she's complaining about people living over there seeing it as an eyesore from way over the lake. You can't even see it from over on the other side of the lake. You can't even see the big houses. I don't know what everybody is complaining about. Just make it go. You know. It would be a lot ... nice for everybody to use down there besides Cornell. You know. It's a nice little building. I have no complaints on it. Why does everybody else got to complain? [laughing] Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Joel. Mr. Harlan — You know, there's big monster building on that lake otherwise. What she ought to worry about is jetskis. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, stick to the point. Mr. Harlan — Faye Gougakis, you know. That's what I'm trying to say. [laughing] Chairperson Wilcox — You just want me to cut you off and send you back don't you? [laughing] Mr. Harlan — That's all I got to say. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. I remind members of this board that it is a public hearing and public has a chance to speak. We need to accord them that opportunity. Board Member Thayer — We are. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh yes, we are. Board Member Talty — Within the confines. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There being no one,. I will close the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Board Member Talty — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved as drafted by Kevin Talty, Board Member Thayer — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Larry Thayer. Susan, you have done lots of writing over there on the resolution as drafted. What have you got for us? Mr. Walker — I have one technical comment. PB 8/7/07 Pg 29 Chairperson Wilcox — Please. Mr. Walker — On the water supply, I haven't figured out how a 16 foot long, 6 foot diameter tank holds 10,000 gallons of water yet. So I just want to make sure that any reference to 10,000 gallons of storage is 10,000 gallons of storage that is frost free and will always be available for use any time of the year. Chairperson Wilcox — I must admit I did not take the dimensions and do the calculation. Mr. Walker — I did. It's 3300 gallons basically, 3400 gallons. Chairperson Wilcox — So what is the issue? Is it the issue that you need 3300 gallons of water or is the issue, which is all they had, which is sufficient, or is the issue that the tank is not sufficient to hold 10,000 which is what we need? Mr. Walker — Well, they say we need 8,000 gallons of water. The tank is not big enough as they are showing it. I just want to make it clear. The site plan shows 10,000 gallon water tank. The reference in here is to a specific size of a tank, which is not a 10,000 gallon water tank. So as long as the approval is based on a 10,000 gallon water tank that is frost free because this is Ithaca, not Florida. Frozen water doesn't help put a fire out. Board Member Thayer — How do you make it frost free? Mr. Walker Well, you heat it. You circulate the water. You bury the tank 4 feet deep. There's a lot of things, in this climate will not stay frost free unless you have could probably keep 10,000 gallons of it frost free. You put a lot of insulation on it. but just having an exposed tank maybe 100,000 gallon tank you Board Member Hoffmann — Dan, how much larger do you think the tank would be if it held 10,000 gallons than the measurements than we were given? Mr. Walker — Well, basically, this diameter... well, it varies with tank, but the 16 foot by 6 foot diameter tank is only about a 3500 gallon tank. So you would have to have 3 of those tanks. So it would be a tank that was 18 feet. If it was square it would basically be, you know, 12 to 18 feet across and 16 foot long, would basically be...it would be about 3 times what they are showing. Board Member Hoffmann — And this is just a temporary tank? Mr. Walker — Right. And they don't have room for more, ..so Board Member Hoffmann — Do you know how temporary is likely to be? Because it depends on what the Town does, right? PB 8/7/07 Pg 30 Mr. Walker — The plan is 2008, the Town is planning to replace the water main on East Shore Drive. We are in the process of surveying now and we will be doing design work in the winter for spring construction start. It is in our capital plan. We are planning to do it. Now, there are always mitigating circumstances. And for example, the City is proposing...we don't know what the City is proposing for their water supply. If per chance they were going to build a new water main in 3 years, we may not build our right away. So it could be 3 years or 2 years or we could build it and try to get money from the City to build it to the size they would need in the future. Our plan is to try to replace that water main next year. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. What do you got, Susan? Including something you wrote based on Dan's comments. Ms. Brock — Okay on page 2 on the conditions, b, paragraph b has a change we previously discussed. It will now read submission of a revised landscaping plan satisfactory to the Director of Planning showing sufficient vegetation. to mitigate the visual impact of the north side of the proposed sailing center building and the rest of b will remain as shown in your draft resolution. We will add condition j to address Dan's issue and Dan please provide changes to the language as appropriate. Submission of cutsheets for the proposed temporary water tank that includes the proposed shape, its proposed shape and dimensions and demonstrate it holds a minimum of 10,000 gallons of water that will be frost free during all seasons of the year. Is that okay? Mr. Walker - Sounds good. Ms. Brock — Okay. So that will be j. Then submission k, I'm sorry, condition k and I don't know if we want this prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or prior to final site plan approval. Submission of a letter from the Ithaca Fire Department stating it has adequate access to the site to provide appropriate emergency response. I don't think that condition f directly addresses that. I think we need a separate condition. Chairperson Wilcox — It doesn't address it directly, yes. Ms. Brock — So and I heard both at the prior meeting and tonight that you want this letter.. . Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, I'd like that for... Ms. Brock — So my only question really is do you want that prior to issuance of the CO or prior to final site plan approval? Chairperson Wilcox — Prior to final. I want that letter in here when they come in for final. Ms. Brock — Okay. So then you don't need anything before that language. Again, its k. Submission of a letter from the Ithaca Fire Department stating it has adequate access to the site to provide appropriate emergency response. And then something you asked for PB 8/7/07 Pg 31 at the July 17th meeting would be condition I. Removal of the temporary water tank and associated facilities after water pressure from the Town's water main is improved to a level that is appropriate for fire fighting and water sprinkler purposes. Board Member Talty — Yeah that's good. Mr. Walker — Instead of water pressure, say water supply because that implies volume and pressure. Ms. Brock — Okay. So removal of the temporary water tank and associated facilities after water supply from the Town's water main is improved to a level that is appropriate for firefighting and water sprinkler purposes. And then I want to go back to f, which right now requires submission of details showing any proposed mitigation of the existing steep entrance drive and submission from the City Fire Department and the railroad that they are supportive of these plans. That's ... that...in light of the discussion that was being held tonight puts Cornell in a bit of a quandary because they can...they can't really propose mitigation by themselves in a vacuum. They have to get the railroad and the State actually to both agree to it. Shirley Egan has provided me with some suggested language to deal with that issue. I will read that to you and perhaps if you find this to be appropriate we could substitute this language for what currently exists in condition f. The first part is the same. Submission of details showing any proposed mitigation of the existing steep entrance drive and documentation from the Ithaca City Fire Department showing it is supportive of the proposed mitigation; and submission of proof that Cornell requested the approval of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and New York State Department of Transportation for the construction by Cornell of the proposed mitigation. If Norfolk Southern Railroad and New York State Department of Transportation both grant approval; prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, construction of proposed mitigation prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. So there are sort of several tiers here. One is that Cornell will try to come up with mitigation. They will be required to request that both the railroad and the State approve the mitigation. If they do grant approval prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy then Cornell will be obligated to actually construction the mitigation before they get the Certificate of Occupancy. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you comfortable with that? Ms. Brock — Um, I am, yes. Because they cannot do this by themselves. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. And they have to prove that they tried. Ms. Brock — They have to prove they tried and then if they get the approval from the other entities, they actually have to do it. So in a way its actually stronger than what we had here, which was just that they submit details showing proposed mitigation and show that the railroad and fire department are supportive of the plans. PB 8/7/07 Pg 32 Board Member Talty — I thought I heard that they can't do it. That actually DOT or the railroad has to have their own specialist, unionized, whomever to perform these duties. Is that correct? I don't think that they can actually perform the work. Mr. Walker — Yes, they can. Board Member Talty — They can? Mr. Walker — They would for the DOT they would have to get a highway work permit for a curb cut and DOT doesn't do the work. For the railroad, they would have to get a permit and I'm not exactly sure how their access easements for the railroad is written but generally the railroad requires them to...the railroad would have a fulltime inspector during any work within the railroad right -of -way and they would have to pay that inspector, basically. Board Member Talty — Oh, I see. So they do do the work. They just need to file the necessary documents. Mr. Walker — Right. We put a sewer line in along the railroad right -of -way almost 20 years ago now and we paid fulltime for a railroad inspector while we were in their right - of -way. Board Member Talty — I see. Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — And one more is to reference Cornell's letter. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask another .question about this? If the Ithaca City Fire Department and Norfolk Southern Railroad do not approve as this language is written here, then what would be the situation? Chairperson Wilcox — The existing situation. Board Member Hoffmann — That would be it then? Ms. Brock — Yes. Board Member Talty — That's it. Chairperson Wilcox — But if the existing situation is such that the Ithaca City Fire Department is not, is unwilling to say that the building has sufficient emergency access then they could not proceed and that's based on the other clause that was added. All right. One more. Ms. Brock — Well, a couple more. On page 3, the be it further resolved, paragraph 1, this is the recommendation to the Town Board regarding the local law, just add the words water related before educational uses. PB 8/7/07 Pg 33 Chairperson Wilcox — Make it consistent. Ms. Brock — And then the same.:. Alternate Member Erb — Excuse me. Research is not in that whereas. Ms. Brock — I'm sorry? Chairperson Wilcox — Institutions of higher learning facilities principally dedicated to water related research, education and recreational activities. Right? Is the way it reads in the local law. Ms. Brock — Right. Well, research actually is an educational use. We probably don't have to have it, its redundant, but we just put it in because we knew that was a specific use that they wanted at the site. We wanted to make it clear that would be allowed, but I thought it would be very hard to argue its not assumed under educational. Alternate Member Erb — I knew it was in the other and it was not here. That's all. Ms. Brock — I mean we're not adding ... this is sort of a synopsis anyway. We are not adding recreational either, but anyway, add the words water related for educational uses and the same change in the be it further resolved in the last line to. allow water related educational uses. Obviously this isn't telling the entire story because you have to go back and read the law where it says principally dedicated to water related and our resolution isn't going to change the text of the law. We also don't want to restate every single word in the law in our resolution. And then the final change is one that Fred just mentioned in the last clause, the be it further resolved clause on page 3, add this language. I'll read along and then tell you where I'm inserting the language. That the Planning Board hereby grants special permit to allow the construction and operation of the Merill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive and here is the insert, including the specific uses and subject to the operations policy noted in the letter by Al Gandert of Cornell University, dated April 10, 2007, and then the rest of the text will follow as you show it. As provided for in the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -141 etc. Board Member Hoffmann — I have one more thing. Susan, in that first be it further resolved where we inserted water related, just a few words later, it should be principal, pal rather than ple. Ms. Brock — Yes. Board Member Thayer — Under the new j where we have the specs on the water tank, should we say something about that they must maintain 8,000 gallons of frost free water. Ms. Brock — Well, right now it actually says 10,000 gallons. PB 8/7/07 Pg 34 Board Member Thayer — Yeah, but they need a minimum of 8,000 unfrozen water. Ms. Brock — Well it says 10,000 gallons of water that will be frost free is what we have now. Board Member Thayer — It did say frost free? Ms. Brock — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — What's the answer, Daniel? Dan, is the answer 8,000 or 10,000? Mr. Walker — Their engineer said that they need 8,400 gallons of water to meet the minimum NFPA13 requirements. That is what their minimum is. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Ms. Brock — It does say frost free right now, but actually you raised a question... Board Member Thayer — I missed that when you read it. Okay. Ms. Brock — That will be frost free during all seasons of the year. But now you raised a question whether that number of 10,000 should change to 8,400. Mr. Walker — They are showing on the site plan a 10,000 gallon water storage tank. So if you are approving the site plan with 10,000 gallons of storage... Chairperson Wilcox — Then the resolution should say 10,000. Mr. Walker — They are saying that they specifically have a tank they thought would be 10,000 gallons, but probably would be adjusting that to... Chairperson Wilcox - to 8,400. So I'm comfortable with the 10,000 language. Okay. They'll deal with that. Kevin and Larry, are all those changes acceptable to the 2 of you? Board Member Talty — I'm fine. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you. Anything else at this point? Go ahead. Mr. Blakeney — I would appreciate it if we could talk a bit more about item g. I think based upon the material we have submitted the information through the Cornell Environmental Compliance Office. I think this language is not correct. We have already tested all the soils and this would seem to indicate that during construction we've got to conduct additional tests. All of that has already been done and I think all of that has already been offered up as not being anything further that needed to be done there. It PB 8/7/07 Pg 35 would seem to me that item has been taken care of and I think I would request that it just be eliminated from the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — Eliminated or replaced with all soil ... I mean we could put something in generic that all soil removed from the site is properly disposed of in a regulated sanitation landfill or something like that. Its pretty nebulous. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — But I think I'm convinced with both Mr. Buyer who was here and the note of the conversation that Esther had that we are probably okay. I mean we can either eliminate it or just ensure that its disposed of properly. Board Member Thayer — Let's eliminate it. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, what do you think? From a legal perspective? Ms. Brock — Well, they are required to do it any way, but I guess I'm just wondering if they encounter any visibly contaminated or soils or any soils that has an odor that might suggest contamination. Chairperson Wilcox — Stumble upon something unexpected? Board Member Riha — Well, what this is saying is if they were going to remove any soil they'd have to test that soil. That's a specific thing. Ms. Brock — Right. No I understand that. I understand that. I'm actually just trying to think of if we are deleting this, is there anything we want to say about soil testing. Board Member Riha — Because that is the only thing that you are saying that this is requiring them to do that they wouldn't .otherwise be required to do. I mean if they remove the soil they either put it on their own site or they have to put it in a landfill. Mr. Schlosser — Let me clarify. We actually took deep bores. We_ also took the shallow bores as well. Under today's regulations if any boring company were to smell any odors, fuel oil or anything of that nature, they have to cease immediately and basically report it to DEC. None of that was reported in any of those tests so I'm not quite sure what else we can find. Ms. Brock — How many shallow bores were there on the site? Mr. Schlosser — God, I'd have to take a look or 4. Board Member Thayer — Feet? Its been a couple of years. I think it was 3 Mr. Schlosser — Feet. Board Member Hoffmann — I seem to remember the figure 4, but I remember that the borings were done within the footprint of hotel /restaurant building and I can't remember now and I think I asked building you are proposing would be on the same footprint and I don't answer if I got it. PB 8/7/07 Pg 36 also seem to the proposed last time if this remember the Mr. Schlosser — Obviously not the full footprint, but yes a portion of it is and several of those borings are in there. They were consistent throughout the site. Board Member Hoffmann — No. But my question is will the building you are proposing be located on the footprint where the borings were taken for the restaurant building? Mr. Schlosser — Yes. Not all of them because we had spread the borings out over the larger project before. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not sure I understand the answer anyway, but let me then ask during construction the soil is not disturbed only in the footprint of the building, its disturbed beyond that. You have to dig out further to put in footings and put in fill and stuff like that usually and so... Mr. Schlosser — If its required. I mean basically its ... we submitted the Atlantic testing reports. You have them on file. They actually show where the boring locations were taken and they pretty much follow the shoreline and pretty much sample the entire site. So in the areas that are disturbed, in the areas we are building, in all cases we have at least one if not more tests within that footprint. So we've sampled the entire site I guess is what I am suggesting. Ms. Balestra — There was a map that was created as part of the sketch plan proposal by Esther, who was here, that was included in all of the Planning Board packets, and it indicates all of the areas where the soils were tested. Chairperson Wilcox — And those are the yellow x's... Ms. Balestra — Those are the yellow x's on the aerial photo that Eva has in front of her right now. Board Member Hoffmann — All right, so it goes... Ms. Brock — It looks like there was one test on the footprint of the building, one bore, and then three others spread out across the site heading out towards the Town park. Board Member Riha — So have contaminants been found adjacent to this property or is there some reason to think that if you took 20 more tests you would come up with something? PB 8/7/07 Pg 37 Ms. Brock — I think there was just concern when the Remington Hotel... Inn... was being proposed, because of the prior use of the site ... there was a coal /fire power plant on the site supporting the use that was there in the past. So ... what if we said; if any visibly contaminated soil or soil with odors indicating contamination are disturbed during construction, submission of soil testing information for the presence of soil contaminants in the area of the disturbed soil and proper disposal of any contaminated soil... just... keep this language, but add that qualifier... that I indicated in the beginning. Chairperson Wilcox — The essential change is not that they have to test the soil that they are gonna carry off -site, but that if they discover. soil that has odor or other abnormality, then you test. Ms. Brock — Right, odor or visual indication of contamination, they test, and we shouldn't...) think we'd strike the parameters that they test for, chrysene, lead, and cadmium, that they should... they'll have to make their professional... Mr. Schlosser — So testing for contaminates other than what's been reported and tested. Is that what you.. 'Are you referring to contaminates other than what's been tested and reported? Ms. Brock — If any visibly contaminated soil, or soil with odors indicating contamination is disturbed. Chairperson Wilcox — The intent here is to cover, I think, the unexpected. Board Member Talty — Above and beyond what they already found out ... that's what he's saying. He's saying, if he continues to stumble across the things that they've already discovered, does that fall into... Ms. Brock — Are the kinds of ... the levels of contamination ... the types of contaminates that are presents right now ... are those visible ?...or can you smell them? ... I mean, my understanding was that these were at background levels, so... Board Member Riha — They wouldn't be visible. Ms. Brock — Yeah, so I'm talking about something different, unless you are telling me that right now you can pick up that soil and know it's contaminated... Board Member Riha — You can't know it has those levels of cadmium right now. Mr. Beyers — No, the soil that we have on site now, there would be no odor. They are called semi - volatiles for one thing, so they're not really volatile anyway and the metal certainly wouldn't smell, you wouldn't see any discoloration. Along the side of the lake, you can always... organic materials...there are odors sometimes along the lake, so it might be a little difficult, but, generally, the language you suggested would be typical of PB 8/7/07 Pg 38 anything we do in any construction project. If we're excavating, we find some kind of sheen or we find some kind of odor, then we'd stop and we investigate and see what's up and decide what kind of testing is appropriate before we continue. So, I think it's, quite frankly, a little unusual to have that as a condition because it is something we do every day and it's kind of part of the general conditions, but... Chairperson Wilcox — But this is an unusual site. Ms. Brock — Right, given it's past history and it's proximity to the shoreline. So I don't think we probably are imposing on you anything that you Mr. Beyers -- ...I say that that's consistent with practice we do on any site... Ms. Brock — ...I think the Town would be better protected having that language in here. Okay, so I will read it again "If any visibly contaminated soil, or soil with odors indicating contamination, is disturbed (is that the right verb? Is or are) during construction, submission of soil testing information for the presence of any soil contaminants in the area of the disturbed soil, proper disposal of any contaminated soi8l that does not meet DEC standards offsite in a DEC - certified waste disposal facility, and submission of adequate documentation, if applicable, any manifests showing such disposal in a DEC - certified waste disposal facility prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy" Mr. Beyers — The only slight change ... the word manifest is sort of a technical term, in the trade, usually for hazardous waste, and I'd just like to say documentation there... manifest would be covered, but so would other kinds of documentation. Ms. Brock — Well it says "submission of adequate documentation, including "if applicable" and manifests ... so it's just being very broad but then narrowing down to say and we mean manifests too if you have to have those. Mr. Beyers — Okay. And we hope we don't have to deal with that. Ms. Brock — We do too. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, Larry ... acceptable? (yes) Mr. Blakeney — I think it would be appropriate to somehow include words in .there that say anything that is discovered in excess of what has already been reported in the Atlantic testing. Ms. Brock — Well, we just heard from Mr. Beyers that these qualifiers that we are putting in here would not apply to what has already been discovered. That there's no visible contamination associated with the types of pollutants that have already been discovered, nor is there any odor associated with them. Mr. Blakeney — All right, I guess that takes care of it. Thank you. PB 8/7/07 Pg 39 Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Board Member Thayer - We are ready to vote. Chairperson Wilcox — We are ready to vote? I want to make sure. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 078 Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Permit and Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Amendment to Lakefront Commercial Zone Merrill Family Sailing Center 1000 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 7, 2007 Motion made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. The proposed actions include consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a zoning amendment 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. The Town Board has referred the proposed Lakefront Commercial zoning amendment to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert Blakeney, Agent, and 2. These are Unlisted Actions for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review has, on July 17, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearings held on July 17, 2007 and August 7, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate 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), P61 (Boat Storage Shed Exterior Elevations), E1.1 and P1.1(Site PB 8/7/07 Pg 40 Utility sheets), VS 1 - 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), and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Merrill Family Sailing Center, 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, as shown on a set of site plan sheets for the project and other application materials, listed in Whereas number 3 above, subject to the following conditions, to be met prior to Final Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board, unless otherwise noted: a_ Granting of any necessary variances for the proposed boat storage shed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and b. Submission of a revised landscaping plan, satisfactory to the Director of Planning, showing sufficient vegetation to mitigate the visual impact of the north side of the proposed Sailing Center building, and preservation of existing established trees and vegetative growth on the site, and C, Revision of Sheet L3 "Grading Plan, Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, Water Quality Plan and Details," to include the following: a revision of the location of the infiltration trench closest to the marina, proposed positioning of the utility trench, the addition of temporary check dams for the proposed drainage swale from the 24" culvert across East Shore Drive to the 48" culvert to the north, and the addition of proposed grading of the parking lot to drain to the infiltration trenches, and d. Submission of soil tests for the proposed infiltration trenches to ensure that the soil surrounding the proposed trenches is pervious enough to allow infiltration, and e. Submission of peak flow numbers for the proposed drainage swale to the existing 48" northern drainage culvert, and f. Submission of details showing any proposed mitigation of the existing steep entrance drive and documentation from the Ithaca City Fire Department showing it is supportive of the proposed mitigation; and submission of proof that Cornell requested the approval of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and the New York State Department of Transportation for the construction by Cornell of the proposed mitigation. If Norfolk Southern Railroad and New York State Department of Transportation both grant approval prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, construction of proposed mitigation prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, and PB 8/7/07 Pg 41 g. If any visibly contaminated soil, or soil with odors indicating contamination, is disturbed during construction, submission of soil testing information for the presence of any soil contaminants in the area of the disturbed soil, proper disposal of any contaminated soi81 that does not meet DEC' standards offsite in a DEC- certified waste disposal facility, and submission of adequate documentation, if applicable, any manifests showing such disposal in a DEC - certified waste disposal facility prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and h. Submission of a stormwater "`Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, for the proposed water infiltration strips, prior to issuance of any building permit, and is Enactment of the proposed local law by the Town Board amending the Lakefront Commercial Zone, as recommended by the Planning Board below, and j. Submission of cut - sheets for the proposed temporary water tank that include its proposed shape and dimensions and demonstrate it holds a minimum of 10,000 gallons of water that will be frost-free during all seasons of the year, and k. Submission of a letter from the Ithaca Fire Department stating it has adequate access to the site to provide appropriate emergency response, and I. Removal of the temporary water tank and associated facilities after water supply from the Town's water main is improved to a level that is appropriate for firefighting and water sprinkler purposes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed local law amending Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code, titled "Lakefront Commercial Zone," to include the definition of ordinary high water line, water - related educational uses as principal uses authorized by special permit only, and additional yard regulations, determining that: a. There is a need for the proposed zoning amendment to accommodate.the proposed sailing center to serve the educational and recreational needs of the community, and b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the proposed zoning amendment, and PS 8/7/07 Pg 42 C. The proposed zoning amendment is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit. to allow the construction and operation of the Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, including the specific uses and subject to the operations policy noted in the letter by Al Ganert of Cornell University, dated April 10, 2007, as provided for in the Town of Ithaca Code §270 -141 (Principal uses authorized by Special Permit only), finding that the standards of §270 -200, Subsections A — L of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, subject to the Town Board adopting the zoning amendment to allow water - related educational uses by Special Permit referenced above. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:45p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a recommendation to .the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the French Lavendar flower shop located at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca tax parcel no. 59. -2 -16, medium density residential zone. The proposal is to have two wall signs where one wall sign is permitted on the building, with the sign.on the front of the building measuring +J- 23 square feet where 4 square feet is permitted. Unis A. McFall, Owner; Monique L. Morse, Applicant. Monique Morse, 99 Harvey Hill Road, Ithaca I am the owner of the shop and I feel that the existing 4 square foot sign is not really adequate for my business. I have basically daily people coming into the shop saying they had no idea what my shop was because they cant' really read the sign as they drive by. So I would like to request a sign which would consist of individual letters attached to the front of the building, very similar in size and shape and color to that of the previous tenant which was the Knitting Machine Etc. shop and if I was allowed to do that, I would take the existing sign and move it to the side of the building where the parking area is to hopefully discourage parkers ... people parking in my lot from both the Cornell building and a lot of other vehicles. I don't mind people using the walking trail parking in my lot and people have been very considerate and come in and asked me if they need to park on my side of the building because the rest of the spots are all filled PB 8/7/07 Pg 43 up from the Cornell employees, or whatever they are, students. So I would basically like to have the sign there to discourage extraneous parkers, I guess. Chairperson Wilcox — Understood. Questions? There are none? Board Member Talty — Yeah. How's business? Ms. Morse — Quiet since Memorial Day. I think since the students left, it quieted down quite a bit. Board Member Thayer — It would be better with a bigger sign, right? Ms. Morse — It would definitely be better with a bigger sign. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you do me a favor:..and the Part II environmental assessment, under C4, you referenced "the site first used as a gas station" ...Would you change that to "a gas station and neighborhood grocery? Ms. Balestra — Yes I will. Board Member Hoffmann — I think actually the main use was a grocery store and the gas station was supplemental to that. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, Bud's Red and White was the grocery store which was a neighborhood grocery store. Any further discussion? Board Member Hoffmann — I have some questions, or statements maybe.. I'm not entirely convinced that a bigger sign would make a difference. Because I think ... your shop looks lovely from the outside driving by and I think if you have a little imagination, you can easily think that this is a flower and gift shop by what you have outside. You have lots of plants, the color of the building is an indication, I think. Ms. Morse — Yes, but daily I have people saying to me that they had no idea what my building was. Every day they come in and say that. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe they are driving too fast. [laughter] Ms. Morse — But that's been since February, so that's a lot of people saying that they don't know what my building is. Board Member Hoffmann — I also think that maybe there is maybe not quite as many customers for flowers as there might be in other places. Or as there might be if there weren't flowers available in other places nearby. I think there might be other reasons why you're not having as many customers as you would like. PB 8/7/07 Pg 44 Board Member Talty — I don't... Fred... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I'm concerned about where we're going here... Board Member Thayer — Yeah, really. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Board Member Thayer -- We're talking about a sign. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I know, but I guess I... Chairperson Wilcox — You're getting real close to telling her how to run her business. Board Member Thayer — Really, if she wants to put the sign up, we want.. . Board Member Talty — And there's been numerous times I have been chastised for that. Board Member Hoffmann — All right. I just want to say that I'm not so sure the sign would help[, that's all, and I think that I would be willing to go for a somewhat bigger sign and let you try, but I'm not sure that it would make a difference. Board Member Talty — I think the applicant's pictures are great. I think that it depicts that the sign is definitely too small, from across the street. Chairperson Wilcox — The key for me is the sign is essentially the same size as the one that was there before. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, too bad we didn't grandfather that in. Board Member Talty — That's right. Chairperson Wilcox — We all set? Board Member Hoffmann = Have you driven by and sent he sign? Board Member Talty — Yeah, it's small. Board Member Thayer — Yeah. Board Member Riha — It's too small. Board Member Thayer — It's tiny. PB 8/7/07 Pg 45 Chairperson Wilcox — This is a public hearing. Gloria, get up here, please. You've waited patiently. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing and this is your opportunity to address the Planning Board, Gloria Howell, 117 Clover Lane I feel that if that tenant of the business wants a larger sign, because she thinks it's going to help her business, I think she should have it. We on Clover Lane, I have discussed it with our neighbors, there are just 2 or 3 that I haven't seen, but the rest of them wanted me to express their feeling that this flower shop would be an asset to our area. Cornell has that big ugly building next to it, so this flower shop, with the beautiful flowers and the painting... they've cleaned it up, it has been...it really makes it look nice and especially at the head of Clover Lane, to see this beautiful building. We need it, we want it to go, and we would like to help her in any way that she feels that it would be a place for people to go and get their flowers and we want the people to know. We lived on Clover Lane and didn't know what this place was. We had to go in the place and say what are you selling? So you see, it's not that easy, unless you're glasses are so thick that everything is big. So, anyway, please, I do hope that you can recommend for her to have her signs for this building to the Zoning... right? Thank you for letting me speak. didn't say my name again, I probably should have... Chairperson Wilcox — We got it. Thank you Gloria. Anybody else? Cande Carroll, 925 Mitchell Street I am a neighbor and I have seen that building go through many types of businesses and I was surprised recently to see that it was a little flower shop. Very cute. I don't, I generally am not in favor of big signage, but I would say that this little shop needs a decent sized sign, which this seems, in my opinion, to fall within. I like to walk to 'East Hill plaza to do my shopping ... I can take my laundry, I can get my groceries, I can go to any one of 3 or 4 banks, and I would love to have a little flower shop continue togrow where I could buy flowers. And during the months November to April, it's gonna be hard to have beautiful green plants and flowers sitting outside to draw attention to the buildings, so she really needs to do something. Board Member Hoffmann - That's true, but you know hw it is, once people find out it's there, they don't need to have the plants outside to remind them it's there. Ms. Carroll — I do. I do ... I'm driving thinking about where I'm going and my mind is generally on that and if I am reminded by a sign that I can see, I think it's a good thing, in this case. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There being no one I will close...l'm sorry did I miss...my apologies. PB 8/7/07 Pg 46 Anne Carson, 811 Mitchell Street So that's four doors down from the flower shop and I agree that it should have a sign, as long as it's not neon, but, definitely, there is no sign on the east side as you are coming down Mitchell Street so that you would pass it and not know that it was there. And it was empty, the building was empty for quite a while after the Knitting Machine shop moved. It's not ... that parking lot is a different issue. The parking lot is not too clear as to who owns what and so there's never been a no parking sign or anything like that, so it's not clear that it's just customers only. So even though it's on the very edge of a residential area, it would be nice to see something go there and not something horrid looking ... no Burger Kings thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — and it is not a neon sign, in fact, neon signs are prohibited in the Town of Ithaca, right? They are prohibited. Anybody else? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 8:56p.m. Hollis, I'm sorry, did you want to say something? Alternate Member Erb — Yes. I also very much want this little business as a buffer to the rest of neighborhood and I want to hope that it does well. My concern is that we're going from the 13 something square foot sign that Knitting Machine had to a 23 something square foot sign and the only purpose I see for having such an exaggeration of what was there before, is for the words French Lavender, which are the words that are not conveying any useful information to the passers by. If the existing sign were used and the cutout letters were simply the flowers and gifts, we would have a much smaller additional sign and the actual function of this little business would become prominent. I think giving away most of both signs to words that do not convey the goal of the business, is the applicant hurting herself. And I'm not in favor of such a massive set of letters just for the words French Lavender. Ms. Balestra — Part of the reason that the sign is 23 square feet is because the way that we measure signs, according to the sign law, the total sign area includes any of the space in- between French Lavender and Flowers and Gifts. So the letters French Lavender are indeed the same size as the Knitting Machines Etc., then there are approximately 6 or 7 inches of space between French Lavender and Flowers and Gifts, and then Flowers and Gifts are smaller, but, total sign area is the area of the smallest rectangle surrounding the entire sign. That includes a certain amount of space, which makes up the 23 square feet. Alternate Member Erb — My point is that, again, we're not suppose to tell her how to run her business but the whole point is people don't know what it is because what is being prominently displayed is French Lavender, rather than Flowers and Gifts and if the cut out letters were the same size as Knitting Machine Etc and we put those up across the shingled, gabled end, said "Flowers and Gifts "...hello... Ms. Balestra — But the name of the business... Board Member Talty — What are you going to do ... put "drugstore ", you know what I mean. PB 8/7/07 Pg 47 Alternate Member Erb — But Rite Aid people know what it is. Board Member Talty — How do you know ... if you're from Germany you don't ... you know what I mean. How do ... but ... I understand you're point... Alternate Member Erb — My point is that the brand name of this business does not convey useful information... Board Member Talty — But 6 inch letters can easily be ... I don't know how far 6 inches from the road ... there's a formula for that, but 6inch letters, the size of a dollar bill, are easily seen from the road. Alternate Member Erb — That's great... Board Member Talty — I understand what you're saying... Alternate Member Erb — What I don't want is the big French Lavender letters added onto.it. I mean, I just think... Board Member Talty - She's promoting the name of her business... Alternate Member Erb — I just think that that's getting intrusive, as opposed to recommending a variance for this additional, slightly smaller sign that would, that would yell 'hello, flowers and gifts'. Chairperson Wilcox —.I'm sure the applicant has heard your comments... Alternate Member Erb — I mean, that's... Board Member Hoffmann — I think that that's a very good point. I also think that was is a very good idea is putting a sign on the eastern wall of the building because I think that's where most people will have a chance to read what the sign says as they are driving by, rather than on the face where the entrance door is, because you don't look into the side that much when you're driving by, so, in some ways, maybe it would make more sense to have a somewhat larger sign on the eastern wall than over the entrance. Chairperson Wilcox — Monique can I have you come up here. The resolution as drafted, our recommendation, states that the proposed sign will not exceed 24 square.feet, that's given the fat that we've been represented that the sign you are proposing will be 23 square feet? Okay. Are you comfortable with that. Would someone like to move the motion? So moved by Kevin, seconded by Susan. Any further discussion? Ms. Brock — Fred. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, yes, Susan to my left. PB 8/7/07 Pg 48 Ms. Brock — A, in the last resolved, I think we need to delete the parenthesis around the s because there are two signs... Chairperson Wilcox - Correct. There are two signs and they are handled in separate resolved clauses. Yes. Ms. Brock — And also, if you have the limit of 24 square feet, then both signs, together, could not exceed 24 square feet. Chairperson Wilcox — That's not what is being presented to us. Ms. Brock — I know. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, oh, I'm sorry ... if we kept the s there, the parenthetical s, correct, right. Ms. Brock — And there's just a word missing right above that ... it says "where signs ", we need to add the word "in" .., residential districts are restricted to 4 square feet in size. Chairperson Wilcox — The very end of the sentence, yes. Board Member Talty — I have a question. Since the sign, the adjusted sign law, has been implemented, how many variances.come in front of us? It seems like every sign that goes up, there's a variance. Chairperson Wilcox — That's because, that's because, we try to limit it and people want more. This one is ... I mean, technically, you're in a residential district, that's the issue here. Board Member Talty — I understand the issue here, it just seems as though an inordinate amount of people coming in front of us with ... to get back to like what George always talks about, setting a precedent. Chairperson Wilcox — I think there always will be... Board Member Talty — I am in agreement with this one. I'm just saying, in general, it just seems like everyone is coming. Chairperson Wilcox — I think that no matter how we restrict signage, the applicant, the owner, the business owner, is always going to want more. You know, they want their sign to be noticed. Bigger and taller and brighter and higher ... you know... Board Member Riha — We've got another one... Chairperson Wilcox — I know we have another one coming up. PB 8/7/07 Pg 49 Board Member Talty — Have we said no yet? Board Member Thayer — N00000. We've reduced the size. Ms. Brock — Well, you just make a recommendation. Chairperson Wilcox — We're only giving a recommendation here anyway. It's the ZBA, the Zoning Boards job, but, have we been tough? Yes. Board Member Talty — We've been tough, but we haven't said no. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, we have. Board Member Talty — No, we've decreased, we haven't said no. Chairperson Wilcox — Well remember, you gotta be careful, that, that, and do we want to get into this now.' 'but, they have a right to signage. I mean that comes with the zoning. Board Member Talty — They have a right to signage under what we, what is on the books. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. So we cant' say no, but we can ... well, we told Rite Aid that they couldn't get more than what was allowed. We made that very clear. They got no more than what was allowed. Board Member Hoffmann — I think it's been more often the case when we have said no when it comes to the number of signs rather than to the size of the signs. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor... Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to say, I am somewhat hesitant, but because there have been larger signs there before, I'm willing to go for it. Alternate Member Erb — Yeah, I guess ... I mean, I was trying to cut the new sign down, in size, honestly, by just simply focusing on what was important words, and it's not French Lavender... Chairperson Wilcox — Let me do this again... All those in favor, please signal by saying Aye... Board Member Hoffmann — Are you going to allow some discussion? Board Member Talty — No. PB 8/7/07 Pg 50 Chairperson Wilcox — No. This is it. All those opposed... nobody opposed..:motion is passed. Thank you very much. I'm trying to get going here. Board Member Hoffmann — Usually there is discussion after the resolution is moved... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure there was anything left to say at that point. Board Member Talty — I just want to say, I am glad that a lot of the neighborhood folks showed up for this... Chairperson Wilcox — And sat here waiting for us to get to them. Board Member Talty — I wanted to say that. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 079 Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Sign Variance — French Lavender Flower Shop 903 Mitchell Street Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16 Sign Review Board (Planning Board) August 7, 2007 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign variance to allow two wall signs on the French Lavender Flower Shop building, an existing 4 square foot sign to be moved from the front of the building to the east side of the building, and a 23 +/- square foot sign to be installed on the front of the building. The French Lavender Flower Shop is located at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density Residential Zone. Eunice McFall, Owner, Monique Morse, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 7, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate photos and documents containing the existing and proposed French Lavender Flower Shop sign information, and other application materials containing the dimensions of the new proposed sign. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the request for a sign variance for two wall signs, where the Town Sign Law permits one wall sign in residential districts, PB 8/7/07, Pg 51 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of the request for a sign variance for one 23 +/- square foot wall sign, where signs in residential districts are restricted to four square feet in size, such approval subject to the following conditions: a. The proposed signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in total sign area, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and b. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the new sign. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:05 p.m. Is Mr. Yeater....have a seat please....thank you for your patience... SEQR Determination: Boat Mooring, 1035 Taughannock Boulevard. At 9:05 the next item on the agenda this evening is a State Environmental Quality Review determination for the proposed boat mooring located at 1035 Taughannock Boulevard. Name and address Please. David Yeater, 925 Mitchell Street Chairperson Wilcox — Are you buying this property? Mr. Yeater — No, I have owned this property for 17 years. Chairperson Wilcox — You bought it from Mr. Frank Petucci? Mr. Yeater — I certainly did. Chairperson Wilcox — I know the name very well, having been a longtime resident. It wasn't clear ... I looked at the survey map, and then I noticed that, in, when the notice of PB 8/7/07 Pg 52 public hearing was mailed out, that Mr. Petucci was also mailed a copy of the public hearing notice in Arlington Virginia. Mr. Yeater — And he now has built a house on the other side of Rout 89, about a half mile south. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. If you would give us a brief explanation of what's being proposed this evening. Mr. Yeater — Okay, time me. It's a 100 foot lakefront parcel. We want to put a mooring buoy at the midpoint of the parcel, 50 feet in from either side. The Mooring buoy would be, actually, a mushroom anchor weighing 200 pounds, removable, should that ever need to be done. Propose to put a boat up to 30 feet, the boat that initially would be on the mooring would be a 28 foot boat owned by a friend, not by me, and I promise that there will not be a boat on this mooring that will have letters more than 6 inches high, nor will there be a boat named French Lavender. (laughter) Chairperson Wilcox — Any environmental issues that you're aware of? Mr. Yeater — No. Ms. Balestra — Staff has some changes to make to some of the documents. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, go. Ms. Balestra — After reviewing the lakefront residential zone regulation as it pertains to moorings, Staff realized, in conjunction with the Town Attorney today, that the applicant only needs special permit approval, not special permit and preliminary and final site plan approval. So, therefore, the SEQR resolution needs to be amended but also part II of the SEQR in part C4 needs to be amended where it says "the property is zoned lakefront residential, the Town zoning code allows mooring in this zone with" strike site plan, just needs special permit. Board Member Talty — So really, we don't need a public hearing on this. Chairperson Wilcox — No we still need a public hearing. Ms. Balestra — There's a public hearing... Chairperson Wilcox -- ...for the special permit. Ms. Balestra — Submissions are the same, it's just, the resolutions need to be modified. Chairperson Wilcox — To reference simple the permit as opposed to the site plan approval. Okay. How do you get the mooring...is there anything else you want to say in regard to those changes? PB 8/7/07 Pg 53 Ms. Balestra — Only when we get to the resolutions. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. How do you get the mooring out there? Mr. Yeater — It's just a big anchor. You take it out in a power boat and you drop it off the end of the boat. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. How do you know where to place it? Mr. Yeater — You have an observer on the shore guiding you. Chairperson Wilcox — And how about the distance out from the shoreline? Mr. Yeater — You measure that from the dock with a rope. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, okay. And that's it, that's how you do it? Mr. Yeater — Yup. Ms. Brock — But Fred, I couldn't find anything in the materials that showed how far out from the shoreline this mooring would be placed? Mr. Yeater — Well, it's on the map at about 80 little bit from that, so it would be closer than that, Ms. Brock — So what's the proposed location? Board Member Talty — How many feet. Ms. Brock — How many feet out from the shore? feet. Actually, we'd like to bring it in a I think. Mr. Yeater — From the shore right now, it's probably about 140 or 150 feet out. Chairperson Wilcox — No, where do you want to place the buoy in terms of the distance from the shore? Mr. Yeater — The map that you have, it would be between 140 and 150 feet out and am proposing to probably bring it in about 20 feet from that, so it would be, say, 130. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Because we're going to hold you to it. Board Member Riha — 20 feet is... Mr. Yeater — then I'll say 140 and I'll stay within that, if that's okay. PB 8/7/07 Pg 54 Ms. Brock —130 —150, would that cover... Mr. Yeater — That would cover it. Ms. Brock — That would cover it completely? Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, yeah, we don't want to approve it and then you go out and put it 200 feet out. Mr. Yeater — That wouldn't be a good idea. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that's what we're getting at. We want to somehow bracket where it's going to be put so that we can make sure that you have compliance with the special permit that's been granted. That's all. Okay. You said you're not awayre of any environmental concerns. Any other discussion with regards ... we have 2 votes, by the way, 1 is the environmental review vote:.. Mr. Yeater — I saw that.. . Chairperson Wilcox -- ...and have, then we'll get to the environmental review? then if we get through the special permit. Any other environmental review, then we discussion with regarding the Board Member Hoffmann — Just a question. The dock as it's shown on the drawing we got, which is called... Chairperson Wilcox — It's a survey of the property dated September 14, 1990, Board Member Hoffmann — Right, and it's stamped as received July 26, 2007. The dock that's drawn on this drawing looks different than the dock as indicated on the aerial photo that we got. Mr. Yeater — It is different. There was a deck added at the end of the dock, I'd say 4 or 5 years ago, before the new ordinance went into effect. Ms. Balestra — And the aerial photos are from 2000, 2002, so the aerial photos are 5+ years old. Board Member Hoffmann — So which is correct? Which is the current configuration of the dock? Chairperson Wilcox — The map. The purpose of the map is to show where the mooring buoy is going to be located. Mr. Yeater —Correct. Yes. PB 8/7/07 Pg 55 Board Member Hoffmann — I would still like to know about the dock. Chairperson Wilcox — The aerial photograph is correct. Ms. Balestra — No.. (Members over talking each other) Alternate Member Erb — There is a modification to this. So we have this sort of stamped and dated, but it's been modified. Board Member Riha — No, this is a new thing, this is older. Alternate Member Erb — Yeah, but this was in 1990 survey and there has been a modification to it that no one is claiming, in a professional sense. Mr. Yeater — I believe that Chris mentioned that in the right -up that she did. Board Member Riha — The issue for having this plan is to show the amount of lake frontage, right? Chairperson Wilcox — And to show where the buoy is going to be located. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I still would like for us to have something that shows the correct situation today. Either in the aerial photo or on the drawing. Ms. Balestra — The aerial photos ... Staff creates the location maps for the Board that have the aerial photos. We obtain the aerial photos as they are from the County. The County recently did a new flyover. We do not have the new aerial photos yet. We don't have access to them. Once we have access to them, we can provide you with a more accurate information. Chairperson Wilcox — The purpose of the aerial photo is to give us the relative location of the property. Ms. Balestra — Right, the aerial photo is just, right, the relative location of the mooring to surrounding properties, the general situation out into the water, how far it shows... Board Member Hoffmann — Now, part of the reason I am asking this question is, I didn't quite understand why there's needed such a wide area for the boat to ... let me see, what is the word I am looking for here, the boat to be able to move from the mooring, there is a special word for used it, I just can't remember it now. Alternate Member Erb — It's swaying on the mooring rope... Board Member Talty — 360... PB 8/7/07 Pg 56 Mr. Yeater — As the wind rotates, or as the wind shifts from north to south or east to west, the boat moves with that so that the nose of the boat always points into the wind. So the position of the boat will change, and literally, the boat can be at any point of a 360 degree circle, you know, pointing in any direction. Board Member Hoffmann — I've never seen boats tied up that way. They have usually been tied at both ends, 1 end to the buoy and the other end to the dock, that's why I am asking. Mr. Yeater — On a mooring, that's not the way it's done. Board Member Thayer — You can't do that. Mr. Yeater — This is a standard mooring. There are quite a few moorings along the west shore exactly like this where the sailboat will be connected only from the bow, and the boat will swing according to the wind. Board Member Hoffmann — I see. So that's the reason one needs that large space around. Anyway, my question abut the dock had to do with the fact that I thought it would have to be tied onto the dock, at the other end. Mr. Yeater — The problem with tying it onto the dock, this is a tangent, but, the waves from the power boats are such that if you had the boat tied along side the dock, which would be very desirable to do that, but the waves that come in are so big that they would be crashing the boast into the dock all the time, even with good bumpers. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, no, I'm not talking about tying it up next to the dock, I'm talking about tying it between the dock and the buoy or the mooring. That's not done? Mr. Yeater — I mean that could be done but the purpose of the mooring is to let a boat swing free. Board Member Hoffmann — That also means that the boat would swing out further from the mooring, so... Mr. Yeater — That's correct. If there's a wind in from the west, it would extend in the other direction. Chairperson Wilcox — Would some one like to move the SEQR motion as drafted? Board Member Talty — I have one question ... Is there slack on the line or is it taut? Like when you drop it, because... PB 8/7/07 Pg 57 Mr. Yeater — There is 20 feet of chain and the water depth there is, right now it's about 12 feet. In the spring it's probably closer to 15 because the lake levels come down some and of course the lake level will go down more in the next few month because there's probably close to 6 feet of variation in the lake level. Board Member Talty — So as the lake goes down it gives more variation to the tautness of the ... what is that? Chain or nylon or steel? Mr. Yeater — It's chain. It's heavy duty chain. Board Member Thayer — What's the buoy made out of? Aluminum or plastic or... Mr. Yeater — The buoy is plastic, I think it's plastic. Board Member Thayer — I was just wondering if it got hit by a boat, and as Kevin pointed out, if there's slack, then it will be able to move easily and it won't dent. Mr. Yeater — ummmm...if a big boat ran right into it, it would dent. Board Member Talty — But my thought pattern is that if the lake is at it's highest level, that means it's taut, the buoy would be taut... Mr. Yeater — At the highest level, it wouldn't quite be taut, there would still be a little... Board Member Talty — But pretty close. But as the water level in the lake decreased, there would be more of a shift to the mooring buoy. Mr. Yeater — That's correct. However, the lowest level of the lake occurs during the winter months when there are no boats out on the mooring, so, and actually, the lake level drops significantly between October and January and usually in January is about the lowest level and of course that's controlled by some NYS entity. Alternate Member Erb - And this is actually one of the reasons that there's a buffer zone out at the edge on both sides, right? Mr. Yeater — yes. I presume that's one of the reasons why the extra 10 feet was put into the ordinance. Alternate Member Erb — Right, because geometrically, as the water level dropped, the boat would be freer to actually go farther towards the side. Mr. Yeater — Right, it would be at an angle, so it wouldn't be the full amount of the drop, but it would be somewhat. PB 8/7/07 Pg 58 Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion as drafted? So moved by Kevin, seconded? Seconded by Hollis. There we go, she got her hand up first. There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by... Ms. Brock — Wait, wait wait ... So, we need to make sure we have the changes ... We are going to delete all the references to preliminary and final site plan approval. Do you want to hear those specifically, or ... no ... But we also, I think, need to specify the distance from the shore, so in the first whereas clause, the last sentence says "the proposal involves installing a oat mooring buoy at approximately the midpoint of the lakefront of the property" and 120 - 150 feet from the shore. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Acceptable Kevin and Hollis? Board Member Hoffmann — And why are you proposing such a wide range? Board Member Talty — Well, if it goes down, the lake level goes down, you're gonna have a bigger arc, you're gonna have to have that play, that's why I brought that up. You know what I'm saying, it won't be as taut as it was. Chairperson Wilcox — We all set? Chris, you all set? I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signal by saying aye. Anybody opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions. Stay right there please. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 080 SEAR Special Permit Proposed Mooring 1035 Taughannock Boulevard Tax Parcel No. 21 -2 -18 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 7, 2007 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS. 1. The proposed actions include consideration of a Special Permit for a proposed mooring buoy located at 1035 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2 -18, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a boat mooring buoy at approximately the midpoint of the lakefront of the property and 120 — 150 feet from the shore. David Yeater, Owner /Applicant, and 2. The proposed action by the Planning Board, are Unlisted actions 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 PB 8/7/07 Pg 59 30 The Planning Board, at a meeting held on August 7, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, a portion of a survey plat originally prepared by Clarence W. Brashear, Licensed Land Surveyor, and revised by the applicant to show the proposed mooring for the property (date stamped July 26, 2007), and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Special Permit, NOW THEREFORE BE IT 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 was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The motion passed. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:19 p.m. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed mooring buoy located at 1035 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 =2 -18, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a boat mooring buoy at approximately the midpoint of the lakefront of the property. David Yeater, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the special permit this evening? There are none. Would you have a seat please, I need to give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a public hearing, if you wish to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, once again, we invite you to the microphone, we ask that you give us your name and address. Anybody? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 9:20p.m. All right, we all set? Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by Larry, seconded by Kevin. PB 8/7/07 Pg 60 Ms. Brock -Okay, so we're going to have the same changes, we'll delete the references to preliminary and final site plan approval. Make the change in the first whereas consistent with the one that we did for the SEQR where we add the reference to 120 — 150 feet from the shore. Under the resolved clauses, delete the first resolved clause, because that's talking about waiving requirements for preliminary and site plan approval. Paragraph #2 now becomes paragraph #1, it will read as follows: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants special permit approval... let's see ... grants special permit for the proposed mooring buoy located at 1035 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21. -2 -18 as shown on a portion of a survey plat originally prepared by Clarence W. Brasher, licensed land surveyor and revised by the applicant to show the proposed mooring for the property (date stamped July 26, 2007) and add in there, with the proposed mooring located 120 -150 feet from the shore, and other application materials, as provided for in the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270 -141, (principal uses authorized by special permit only), find that the standards of Section 270 -200, subsections A — L of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, subject to the following conditions, and then conditions a and b on the top of page 2 would then follow. Condition b will be modified to read "the mooring shall meet the placement requirements outlined in Section 270 -45a2 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, be placed as shown on the application materials in relation to the side -lot lines , and be placed at a distance of 120 -150 feet from the shore. Chairperson Wilcox — Those changes acceptable gentlemen? Alright. Ms. Brock — And just to clarify, that and be it further resolved clause is then deleted because I have actually incorporated it into the one resolve clause that we now have. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying Aye ... anybody opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions, the motion is passed. Thank you sir. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 081 Special Permit Proposed Mooring 1035 Taughannock Boulevard Tax Parcel No. 21 -2 -18 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 7, 2007 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty, WHEREAS: 1. The proposed Special Permit for a proposed mooring Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a buoy located No. 21 -2 -18, boat mooring at 1035 Lakefront buoy at PB 8/7/07 Pg 61 approximately the midpoint of the lakefront of the property and 120 -150 feet from shore. David Yeater, Owner /Applicant, and 2. These are Unlisted Actions for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review has, on August 7, 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 August 7, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a portion of a survey plat, originally prepared by Clarence W. Brashear, Licensed Land Surveyor, and revised by the applicant to show the proposed mooring for the property (date stamped July 26, 2007), and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed mooring buoy located at 1035 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2 -18, as shown on a portion of a survey plat originally prepared by Clarence W. Brashear, Licensed Land Surveyor, and revised by the applicant to show the proposed mooring for the property (date stamped July 26, 2007), with the proposed mooring located 120 — 150 feet from the shore, and other application materials, as provided for in the Town of Ithaca Code §270- 141 (Principal uses authorized by Special Permit only), finding that the standards of §270 -200, Subsections A - L of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, subject to the following conditions: a. submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of any necessary state or federal permits from the NYSDEC or Army Corps of Engineers for the proposed buoy, b. the mooring shall meet the placement requirements outlined in Section 270 - 45(A)(2) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, b places at as shown on the application materials in relation to the side -lot lines, and be placed at a distance of 120 -15- feet from the shore. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion passed. PB 8/7/07 Pg 62 Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:23p.m. SEQR Determination Overlook at West Hill Fences, West Hill Drive. The applicant came with a prototype fence made of actual wood, stained, and about 4 x 3 feet. The Board clapped and laughed. Chairperson Wilcox — I love it. Who gets credit for this? We love it. You listen! Name and address, and a brief over view of what's being considered. Stacey Whitney, 200 West Hill Circle What we're looking to do is put 1,575 feet of fence around two retention silt ponds, This is the exact fence, except the one that's going up will be 4 foot, this is 3 foot, but it's the same materials. The fence would have 2 removable gates for access to the ponds to remove the silt. So, essentially, that's it. Board Member Thayer — Is insurance making you put this up? Mr. Whitney — You know, I don't think so. I think the Town, I actually think Jon Kanter had mentioned it. Also Kristie Rice had mentioned that it would be a good idea. Plus, we see kids hanging around the ponds so. The insurance company never said put it up. I mean, they've been there several times through the construction period. Board Member Thayer — Because they took a fence down at East Hill and now you're putting one up. Board Member Talty — Yeah, that's'what I wanted to know, what the difference is. Alternate Member Erb — Well, there's ... I actually talked to some people who were sitting on the bus bench up there, on Sunday morning, and those ladies indicated that they saw a lot of kids climb over the woven mesh temporary fence at the upper pond and then one of them said "And a little boy almost fell into that one." pointing at the lower pond. So this is in the middle of a dense residence area with a lot of kids and apparently the kids are very attracted to it and it's different from being around the corner at the back of the Rite Aid. Board Member Riha — But I think this is a really important thing to do because I think we are putting in more and more of these retention ponds, and this is an issue. Board Member Thayer — I'm not opposed to it, I was just wondering why we couldn't keep the other one up on the other hill. Board Member Riha — But I think it is something to think about in the future as some of these ponds are proposed. Think about... Ms. Brock — Didn't the Planning Board require them to take it down? PB 8/7/07 Pg 63 Alternate Member Erb — Yes. Well, the issue at the Rite Aid one was that, first of all, it had never been approved and secondly, it was absolutely the ugliest thing in the world because it was that chain -link fence. This is a very attractive bit of fencing. It's a lot lower and we are being asked for permission ahead of time and, I think that there are a lot more kids at these ponds than at the one behind the Rite Aid. Board Member Thayer — Well yeah, but it only takes one kid. I'm wondering why we didn't put the fence, have them put that type of fence back up. I don't know. Board Member Hoffmann — Well I think, I remember one of the points that I brought up, what about all the ponds that exist all over the place? Are we going to think about having fences put around all water bodies that are around Town? Board Member Riha — Well either we're going to, with the new, I mean, we're going to be making a lot more ponds potentially because of what's going to be required... Board Member Hoffmann — But what is the ... why would that matter? I mean, the parents are still there to look after their small kids, or small enough not to understand to go near the pond, right? Mr. Whitney — No. Board Member Riha — I mean these are places where ponds wouldn't naturally exist and then all of a sudden you are putting significant bodies of water ... I mean, it's like putting a swimming pool there and not putting a fence around it. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but what about a farm pond? Board Member Thayer — Pools require it. Board Member Talty — But they're dry a lot also. My question is ... yeah, most of the time they are...but this is a volunteer thing. You're coming to us voluntarily. We're talking about retention ponds that are coming, are we going to, in effect, make them. I think that that's where you're going with this. This is a voluntary situation where they're coming in front of us. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't know, I was looking, actually, for a reason why you came in and wanted to put this in and I don't see any reason. Board Member Thayer — That's why I asked was it insurance. Mr. Whitney — As far as I am aware, we have not been asked by our insurance company to do it. I mean, the property has been there now a year and a half with these ponds there. PB 8/7/07 Pg 64 Board Member Riha — And are they dry most of the time or... Mr. Whitney — No. They have about anywhere from a foot to two foot of water in them. Except for heavy rain times and then they will fill up. But it eventually drains back out. Board Member Thayer— Yeah, the pictures show water. Board Member Riha — But then it essentially drains back out to a foot to two feet? Mr. Whitney — Yeah I would say probably a foot to two feet. I mean, there is a silt pocket which has...Dan might be able to answer that...is that like 4 or 5 feet in that area? Mr. Walker — I think in this big pond, I think at the lower end it is probably 3 to 4 feet deep but that's when they first put it in but we are anticipating 2 to 3 foot of silt build up before it's cleaned out so that would be the sediment pool in there. Mr. Whitney — Right. We just cleaned them about 3 months ago, I think, so, again, the only reason we are putting it up is for safety. We have 128 families, I mean, 128 families with probably 60% of those have children. We've seen kids down there already and we're not willing to take that risk, for a child to lose their lives down there. That's why we're putting it up. Again, I have no idea whether the insurance company wanted it or not. Board Member Talty — I personally don't have a problem with you guys voluntarily coming an doing it but it's like locks, it keeps the honest people out. Kids are going to jump this fence like it's not even there, but, it will protect, say, smaller children. But hopefully, like Eva said, the parents are watching the smaller children. So, voluntarily, don't think it's an issue. I think cedar is a great looking fence, low in maintenance. I think it's a good thing, but to think it's going to keep these kids out... Mr. Whitney — No I don't think it's going to kep the older kids out because they're going to do what they want, but it will slow a younger child down, say 2 or 3 years olds that wandered away from mom or dad. So it will slow them down. Board Member Talty — Yeah, no question. Lt — I mean you don't spend over $20,000 just for the sake of putting a fence up. Have you had complaints or anything like that at all? Mr. Whitney — There's parents that have raised concerns, you know, `my kids have been seen down near the pond' but not that somebody said `put a fence up'. This was planned months ago, we have just been busy getting the property finished, but, I think that the silt, there's a construction fence that's still on site on the larger pond, which we have asked the construction company to keep there until we install this fence. PB 8/7/07 Pg 65 Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to get back to what I was starting to say, and that is, I see in the cover letter that Jon prepared for us, that it says " the applicant is proposing the addition of the fences around the stormwater ponds for security and liability purposes" but there is just this one brief letter from the applicant and it doesn't say a word about that. It says "Enclosed are copies of the spec sheets and the site plan for the work being done on the retention ponds. We are requesting a building permit to add fences around two ponds located on tax parcel" so and so ... It doesn't give any reason. Board Member Thayer — I think he just gave it to us. Board Member Hoffmann — Right but it bothers me that it's not here in writing with the application. Mr. Whitney — I made that as simple as p that's what they told me to do. Make it as notes in the resolution. So, I mean, I can mean, basically it is to keep the kids out. jump the fence. It's just plain and simple. spending $20,000 dollars. Do we have kids life, I mean, that's just cut and dry, ossible because 1 was at the desk in here and simple as possible and Jon would include his name a list of reasons why I would do it, but, I The little kids. I mean, older kids are going to Let's keep the little ones out. I mean, we're to? No, probably not but if it saves one little Alternate Member Erb — Will these be untreated, I'm sorry, I mean unpainted? Mr. Whitney — It'll be just a cedar fence, that's all. Board Member Talty — What are the posts that of in the ground? Pressure treated? Mr. Whitney — Pressure treated. I think they were 6 foot. I think they were 3 feet in the ground. Board Member Talty — Frost line. Yup. Thirty -nine inches. Mr. Whitney — And the .gates were 6 x 6's. Alternate Member Erb — And the gates are the same material? Mr. Whitney — Same material, yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry has moved the SEQR motion. Seconded by Hollis. Board Member Hoffmann — I have another problem with the drawing, L002. It has some dashed lines on the, it's a contour map, and it has some dash lines in orange, but it doesn't say anywhere on it what it is. PB 8/7/07 Pg 66 Mr. Smith — That was just done by Staff to help you visualize and see where they are going to be. That was not submitted by the applicant. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so we have not received, actually, a drawing of where the fence is going to go then. Mr, Smith — There was a drawing in there and it is also one of the conditions, that you'll get an actual map showing that. Board Member Hoffmann -- I saw that drawing, actually, and that looked to me like a sketch, which didn't really indicate very clearly how the fence, and where the fence would go. Mr. Smith — It shows a dotted line around each of the ponds. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but it doesn't really show the ponds the way they are, does it? Mr. Walker — It's a schematic representation. Board Member Hoffmann — Pardon? Mr. Walker — It's a schematic representation. Board Member Talty —Thanks Dan. Board Member Thayer — It shows the dotted lines around the pond. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I must say that I find the drawing that Staff prepared looks very different from the drawing that came with the application, so, I just have trouble with things that are that sketchy. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second with regard to the environmental review. Any further discussion? There being none. All those in favor please signal by saying Aye. Anybody opposed? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva is opposed. There are no abstentions. The motion passes 6 in favor 1 against. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO, 2007- 082 SEOR Overlook at West Hill Site Plan Modification - Fences Tax Parcel No's. 244-14.23 and 24 -4 -14.24 PB 8/7/07. Pg 67 200 West Hill Circle Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 7, 2007 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Hollis Erb. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (Site Plan Modification) for the proposed stormwater fences located on the Overlook at Westhill property, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24. -4 -14.23 and 24.- 4.14.24, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves the installation of two four -foot tall fences surrounding the stormwater management ponds, one located near the intersection of NYS Route 96 and West Hill Drive, and one south of the Community Center in the Overlook at Westhill development. The Domain Companies, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Applicant/Agent, and 2. The proposed site plan modification 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 modifications thereof, and 3. The Planning Board, on August 7, 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, 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 modification, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: Hoffmann ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed 6 to 1. � � Y Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:34p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (Site Plan Modification) for the proposed stormwater fences located on the Overlook at Westhill property, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24.4-14.23 and 24.4.14.24, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves the installation of two four -foot tall fences surrounding the stormwater management ponds, one located near the intersection of NYS Route 96 and West Hill Drive, and one south of the Community Center in the Overlook at Westhill development. The Domain Companies, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Applicant/Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site plan that haven't been asked and addressed already? There being none, this is a public hearing gentlemen, is anybody here to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item? I have one shake of the head, I have another shake of the head and I have no response...) will assume ... does anybody wish to speak this evening? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Board Member Conneman -- I move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Board Member Riha — Second. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, who said second ... Susan did ... Susan Riha said second. Any changes Susan? Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Wilcox — There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying Aye. Anybody opposed? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva is opposed. There are no abstentions, the motion is passed 6 to 1. ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 083 Overlook at West Hill Site Plan Modification= Fences Tax Parcel No's. 24. -4 -14.23 and 24.4-14.24 200 West Hill Circle Town of Ithaca Planning Board, August 7, 2007 PB 8/7/07 Pg 69 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Susan Riha. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (Site Plan Modification) for the proposed stormwater fences located on the Overlook at Westhill property, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24.4-14.23 and 24.- 4.14.24, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves the installation of two four -foot tall fences surrounding the stormwater management ponds, one located near the intersection of NYS Route 96 and West Hill Drive, and one south of the Community Center in the Overlook at Westhill development. The Domain Companies, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Applicant/Agent, and 1. The proposed site plan modification 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 modifications thereof, has on August 7, 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 2. The Planning Board, after holding a public hearing on August 7, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including a statement from the applicant (dated 7/2/07), location and site maps, approved grading plan from 2004 (Sheet L002) for reference with approximate locations of fences highlighted, fence details and sample photo of fence, photos of existing site conditions taken by Planning staff, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a modification of the previously approved site plan for the addition of two fences for Tax Parcel No's. 244-14.23 and 24 -4 -14.24 for the Phase 1a and Phase 1 b Overlook at West Hill Apartments, as shown on the above - referenced materials, conditioned upon the following: a. Submission of a revised site plan showing the location of the proposed fences with accurate dimensions, map title, and revision date of the modified site plan, and PB 817/07 Pg 70 b. All other conditions of the approved site plan for the Overlook at West Hill development shall remain in effect. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, NAYS: Hoffmann ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion passed 6 to 1. Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb Board Member Talty — I do have a question, not on this, I waited until after we got done with this, but, the pressure treated posts that are holding up the balconies. Are you waiting for those to dry out to paint? Mr. Whitney — They are painting them this fall. September. They're doing Phase I in September, I believe, and Phase II will be June of next year. Board Member Talty —Great, thanks. There was a short recess and the tape was off. When I returned, the tape was restarted and the conversation picked up at that point. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Go ahead....Now they won't say a word. Board Member Thayer — That's why I brought up the East Hill situation. I mean, where is our jurisdiction here? You know, do we want to demand a fence or not, that's what you're saying. Board Member Hoffmann — No, I'm not saying... Board Member Thayer — We don't want to get into fences. Board saying, Member Hoffmann -- ...I'm not is it a good idea to even think saying do we want to demand a fence. I'm about putting fences up around all these water bodies. I can see that if it's a swimming pool, for instance... Board Member Thayer — It's mandated on a swimming pool. Board Member Hoffmann -- ...which everybody knows is for going into the water and swimming in, then little kids are, will be more likely to go there and parents are more likely to let them go there, when it's... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm gonna cut you off... PB 8/7/07 Pg 71 Board Member Conneman — But this is a situation where it's a housing development with little kids around and all they get out of this is to have enough fence so little kids can't get in it when they run down. Any kid can climb over it. Board Member Thayer — Almost every development has a detention pond, is what Eva's saying, so... Board Member Hoffmann — Right, so is the general attitude going to be that that's a good idea? To have a fence around all these bodies of water whether they are retention ponds or farm ponds or natural wetland ponds or whatever? Board Member Thayer — I guess we have to leave it up to the owner. Chairperson Wilcox — Can we move on? Board Member Thayer —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — thank you. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:39p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board . of Appeals regarding sign variances for the East Hill Car Wash located at 383 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62.2 -13.2 and 62 -2 -13.6, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal is to install a 69 +/- square foot sign on Cornell University property at the new driveway entrance on Pine Tree Road. The proposed sign will be approximately 16 feet high, internally lit, and includes a clock and a copy change section. Variances for this proposal include, but are not limited to, it being an off- premise sign, which is not permitted, it will exceed the maximum size of signs permitted, it contains a copy change section, which is not permitted, and it is located too close the side lot line. Cornell University, Owner; TCW Associates, Inc., Applicant; Douglas G. Bianchi, Agent. Douglas Bianchi, 1263 Ellis Hollow Road And the reason I am here is to seek approval to.. Chairperson Wilcox — Seek a recommendation, by the way... Mr. Bianchi — To seek a recommendation, to replace a sign that we had that was displaced by the development of the office project that Cornell University just completed. We purchased the property 8 years ago from the original owner, the developer, of that site, who had a sign located on Pine Tree Road. The car wash has no presence on Pine Tree Road. We have no presence on the public road. The sign that was there was actually larger than the square footage that is listed here. It measured, I believe, 5 x 9 if you include the framework. It was grossly inadequate. It PB 8/7/07 Pg 72 had a horizontal profile and even at that size, I had people telling me they couldn't see it. They didn't know we were there. I have been in the planning stages, various degrees of planning to replace it prior to this project happening. This has forced the issue. We would like to dramatically change the look of the sign. I don't know if you have a color copy... Chairperson Wilcox — Right here. Mr. Bianchi — Okay, and actually that's a better representation. The area around the clock will be filled in and solid. It will have a vertical profile. We positioned it to stand 16 feet high so that it creates a void, a see - through void for traffic entering and exiting the driveway so as not to create traffic problems, or to minimize them. Because we don't have the support of a building adjacent to this sign, we are wanting to use the clock as a beacon. We want to use the changeable copy portion to give it a persona so that we can interact with the motoring community. Give them a reason for them to want to stop at the car wash. The size is such that it can be seen from a fair distance. I think that with these letters they will be visible from at least 100 yards away, if not more. That will give the motorists an opportunity to see the sign, register it, decide whether they are going to stop or not, and make appropriate plans to do so without interfering with traffic patterns. Chairperson Wilcox — Who wants to go first? ......... I'll go first. This Board has been very consistent in this commercial area. The Rite Aid, Burger King, come to mind right now, with ensuring that all signage was consistent with zoning. The only exception that I am aware of is Burger King, which needed a variance because they put the sign in the backyard. If you think about it, their sign is in the backyard where the law, at the time, required it in the front yard and the backyard turned out to be a far better place visually for Town residents. Having said that, my initial reaction to the setback and the off - premises, I don't have an objection to that... Board Member Thayer — Right. Chairperson Wilcox -- ...with regard to the square footage, my feeling is, we've kept everybody else to ... I say zoning ordinance, I should say the sign law....we've made everybody else comply with the sign law. I don't see a reason why we should treat you any differently. At least, I shouldn't treat you any differently. Of course, if you get rid of the clock, I think you come into conformance with the 50 square foot or you come at least real close to the 50 square foot ... yeah, you come real close. The way the clock forces the sign to be measured. And then the copy change, we haven't allowed it....the PB 8/7/07 Pg 73 one exception was the church on....up near your house Larry ... the church across the street, not from you but on... Board Member Thayer — We allowed a copy change? Chairperson Wilcox — I think it had a copy change, and remember, somebody ran into it with their car ... there was the gentleman in the wheelchair that came and represented them ... I think we allowed them to put the copy change back there. I think that's the only. That was a church. Yeah. Board Member Thayer — I think they just change the hours once a year or something. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, or something like that. So I think they have a copy change. That's the only one that comes to mind. So that's my initial reaction. Board Member Thayer — Well, I sort of go along with Hollis and her last discussion about the sign. Why does it have to say East Hill? Why not car wash with an arrow. Period. Alternate Member Erb — I really don't like the idea either of the clock or the copy change. I'm ... those just aren't needed. I like the being able to see through underneath the sign, but it still could be 4 feet 1 inch shorter as currently suggested instead of topping out around 16 feet, it could top out at the 12 foot if those 2 sections were dropped. I think it's a humungous and rather intrusive suggestion right now. And they absolutely must have a sign there. Absolutely agree with that. Absolutely agree with it. And I should declare that my dogs, on occasion have been given dog biscuits by the employees there, so, there... Board Member Conneman — I think we should abide by the sign law. .I think we don't...we shouldn't give exceptions to that. There's no reason for it. I mean, most of the people are going to go to that car wash because they know it's there. It's like Burger King. Burger King actually has a smaller sign than they have to have because they were not trying to attract people from New York City who happen to drive past the... on Route 79. Mr. Bianchi — But you can smell Burger King when you're driving around and once you get that aroma, you start looking for the source. We're a back lot with no visibility. Board Member Conneman — You need a sign, but I don't see why you can't make do with a sign that meets the sign law. Board Member Talty — First of all, I like the East Hill Car Wash. It's about the same size font. I like it ... the clock ... get a watch. Mr. Bianchi — It's just a lead -in. Some thing that will attract attention. PB 8/7/07 Pg 74 Board Member Talty — It will definitely.... well, we don't want them ... we want them focused on the road ... we want them to peripherally see your sign. Mr. Bianchi — Right and they will see a sign this size, they will see more peripherally than having to direct their attention to it if it were smaller. Board Member Talty — I think the colors are great. I am opposed to the clock and the changeable. Chairperson Wilcox — Zoning allows how high a sign? Mr. Smith — Twenty feet I believe. Chairperson Wilcox — Twenty feet, and the proposed sign is 16, so we're not close to the allowed limit in terms of the height. Now, I'm not happy that we allow 20 foot signs in that area, but nonetheless, that's, again, I say zoning, I should refer to zoning as sign law, so we're below the height and I am glad that it's not .20 feet, which he would be allowed to do. Mr. Bianchi — I resist that as well, that's jut too high in my mind. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but you look at the other signs there and they tend to be lower except the Burger King sign... Mr. Bianchi — But if you're coming up from the north, from Route 366, there's a shorter line of sight but you're looking up hill, so you need that elevation to capture... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, the issue before us is not the height, the issue before us is the other things. Board Member Hoffmann — I have several comments. One of them is, of course you need to have a sign by the road because of where your property is located and there was a sign by the road before, the only reason it is gone is because of the new construction. I think it's unfortunate that it is on the corner, on the northern corner, of the intersection rather than on the southern corner where I believe it was before. Mr. Bianchi — It actually moved... Board Member Hoffmann — Or was it in the middle? Mr. Bianchi — No, it was always on the northern corner, maybe not out quite as close to the road as this one needs to be because of the bus shelter, but Cornell... neither of us own the property to the south, which is in front of the restaurant. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. Anyway, I think that's an unfortunate location... PB 8/7/07 Pg 75 Mr. Bianchi — Right. Board Member Hoffmann -- ...for several reasons. Mr. Bianchi — We are just trying to make the best out of a bad situation. Board Member Hoffmann — One of them is that it's, there's a bus shelter there, and this sign would be toward the road from the bus shelter and it's going to be much higher than the bus shelter. Mr. Bianchi — It would need to be just so it doesn't create congestion or confliction with the bus shelter. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not sure that it does and I think, actually, that it's too high. I also agree with everybody else that the clock and this changeable copy part of the sign shouldn't be there, but I'm not trying to discuss with you. I'm just wanting to tell you what my opinion is right now. feel the sign is too high. I'm concerned that it is going to be lit from within, is it? I think that's what it says... Mr. Bianchi — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — And the color copy that I see Fred here has, has a very large white area with black and mostly red and yellow on it, and as, let's see, that's going to be an area which is about 6 x 6 feet, that's pretty large to be lit from behind, and I assume in both directions. Mr. Bianchi — Yes, both ways. Board Member Hoffmann — That's going to be quite intrusive, and especially that close to the road. In my opinion. Mr. Bianchi — I am told by the sign company that it will be soft lighting. I don't know. We can size the bulbs appropriately for that. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't remember what the Rite Aid people said about their lighting, whether it was soft or not but it's very cold, blue lighting and it's very ugly, on their signs, in my opinion, again. I wish it would be possible to get the sign more in proportion with the bus shelter. I have no doubt that it's going to be visible, even if it's smaller. I wish it would be possible to move it away from the road more. It's not really allowed to be this close to the road. Mr. Bianchi — It has to be 15 feet and this will be 17 feet, so this it's within... PB 8/7/07 Pg 76 Board Member Hoffmann — I thought it said that it's within the... Mr. Smith Side yard. Mr. Bianchi —The side setback is only 4 feet. It'll conform'.. Mr. Smith — The side yard dimension doesn't meet... Chairperson Wilcox — The side yard is the problem, not the front yard, right, right, it still ... in it's terms of it's set back from the road. Board Member Hoffmann — What is counted as the side yard in this case? Mr. Bianchi — The area to the north. Towards the Pfizer building. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm still confused. The area to the north? Mr. Bianchi — If you're looking at... Chairperson Wilcox — Mike is going to come over here ... (Mike and Fred point out the location to Eva) Board Member Hoffmann — Anyway, there is also sidewalk that is going to go there. The sign is going to sit between the sidewalk and the bus shelter and I just think it's totally out of place. Mr. Bianchi — I am not aware of sidewalks in the plan. Board Member Hoffmann — Well it's shown on this drawing and we know that there is going to be a sidewalk built there. Chairperson Wilcox -- Side walk is on the other side. Board Member Thayer — it's on the other side. Board Member Hoffmann — Well what about this? I thought this was a sidewalk. Mr. Walker — there's a sidewalk on that side... Mr. Bianchi — It looks like it does ... it will eventually extend to Maple Ave. Board Member Hoffmann — This to me looks like a sidewalk. Alternate Member Erb — It's a sidewalk. PB S/7/07 Pg 77 Board Member Hoffmann — And it's supposed to... Chairperson Wilcox — It's the existing sidewalk. Board Member Hoffmann —It's supposed to cross over to Maple Avenue here, where there's a little jog in it. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Correct. I am right. Remember, I just want to be clear here, he is by right has the ability to put a 20 foot sign up. That's not up for discussion, in front of us. Board Member Hoffmann — Right... Board Member Talty — In height... Chairperson Wilcox — Right, he has the right to 20 feet. Board Member Hoffmann — But because of the placement of it, I think it's just, it doesn't fit with the surroundings. Chairperson Wilcox — A 16 foot sign doesn't fit with the surroundings. If you look at all the other signs. Board Member Talty — But they are trying to take into account the line of sight... Chairperson Wilcox — I don't have a problem with... I'm glad it's not 20, I'm glad it's 16, yeah. Alternate Member Erb — I'd still be happy with the 12, but... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I'd be happy with 12 too, but... Board Member Thayer — The bus shelter is 10. Alternate Member Erb — I understand he has the right to have the (can't hear, coughing) but even drawing it on here shows that it's going to stick...this picture right here shows it's sticking above the tree line behind it, which we could then ask for mitigation of, can't we? Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute. We are not doing site plan approval. We are simply giving a recommendation to the Zoning Board, Alternate Member Erb — Excuse me. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Far different. There is no SEQR determination. The ,Zoning Board will do the SEQR determination. PB 8/7ro7 Pg 78 Board Member Talty — I do want to clarify though that the lumens that are going to come through that sign are as low as possible because if it's 6 foot by 6 foot, what are you going to have, 3 four foot tubes in there? Mr. Bianchi — Probably 4 foot tubes. Chairperson Wilcox — We can add that in our recommendations. That we recommend that the Zoning Board ensure that the lumens, that however you want to measure the visibility, either the amount of light given out or the visibility is kept to a minimum because of the size of the sign. We can certainly put that into our recommendation. Alternate Member Erb — We can recommend that but we can't make the recommendation about the height? Chairperson Wilcox — We can make ... he gets 20 feet. Alternate Member Erb — He's entitled to it anyway. Chairperson Wilcox -- He gets 20 feet. The zoning gives him 20 feet. We're not here... we can't sit here and say Alternate Member Erb — We don't like it. Chairperson Wilcox -- ... "we don't think you should get 20 feet." He gets 20 feet by right. Alternate Member Erb — Okay. I understand, but... Ms. Brock — Well he also has a right to a certain amount of illumination. Chairperson Wilcox — He has a right to a certain amount of illumination. Board Member Talty — Right. To a certain point. Mr. Smith — The outdoor lighting law doesn't specify an amount, it just says... Ms. Brock — But the sign law does. Board Member Thayer — That's what I was asking. Ms. Brock — "No sign shall produce illumination excess of 10 foot candles above ambient light level at a distance of 4 feet on a level with the sign." Mr. Smith — I thought the outdoor lighting changed that? PB 8/7/07 Pg 79 Ms. Brock — No. Chairperson Wilcox — And how much light is that, he asks. Mike, do you have any idea how much light that is? Based on your work on the lighting ordinance. Mr. Smith — Not really. With it being internally lit, you don't know what the surface is .going to... Board Member Talty — How much frosting is on the sign, right? You don't know what the lamination... maybe put only 2 bulbs in instead of 4, you could do that. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to emphasize the point that I was trying to make about the general look of that environment there. Cornell University has put up a sign in the median in that new road, which is actually rather attractive and classy looking. It's not too big, it has, in the middle, it has letters that are carved out which are back lit so that the letters are just standing out with the name and the address, and I think I would like to see this whole area developed to look nicer, overall, and it would, I would prefer to see a sign, for you, which is, it has to, of course, be visible, so that the people know that the car wash is there. You have the same situation that Cornell has with their new building, it is also set back there, so they have a sign by the road and then they have a sign up near the building, and if they can have a sign that's as discreet and attractive looking as what they have, I think you could, perhaps, try a little harder to come up with a sign which is a little more classy and attractive looking. Mr. Bianchi — If I may respond to that. They're not a commercial entity. They're not trying to attract public for business purposes. People who go there are going to be the workers or people that need to do business there. We are intentionally trying to be a little more conspicuous to call attention to the fact.. Once they see that sign, they still don't know where the car wash is. We have to get them into that try, but at least they'll visually know that, okay, there's a car wash somewhere around here. I probably need to turn on this road because that's where the sign is located. There's a little level, a certain level of conspicuity that we are trying to achieve to draw public attention, because that's our survival. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and you weren't here last time when Cornell was here asking for a change in the sign that they have next to -the building, but they told us very clearly that it's not just the people that are working in the building. There are other people who need directions too to find their building. So the situation is not that different. Mr. Bianchi — It is very difficult to get people to their destination. I have had 3 people in the last few days coming to Cornell that have actually found the car wash first. It may be because they saw Cornell's sign at the roadway, would turn right, come back, not find anybody for direction or we're the only people around, they would stop and ask how to get to campus. PB 8/7/07 Pg 80 Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, and of course right now they can't find your car wash very easily because you don't have a sign. Mr. Bianchi — That's exactly right and we're trying to change that. It's imperative to change. Board Member Hoffmann -- I would .just .like to be able to see a somewhat happier medium between what you're proposing and... Mr. Bianchi — One of the reasons it has taken us 8 years to get here is that there is no perfect design out there, and I have gone through a lot of permutations and this one, given the lay of the land now, had I done it 6 years ago or 2 years ago, the lay of the land would be different and the sign might look different. But, given that there are so many low profile signs and it's becoming such a congested area, we chose to go high. We chose to give it a vertical orientation. I think it's less intrusive than the Rite Aid sign. That looks massive, because it's horizontal, and, quite frankly, I agree. Why do they need such a big sign, they've got a huge building right behind it with Rite Aid or Pharmacy written on it. We don't have that luxury, unfortunately. Alternate Member Erb — going back to the Rite Aid sign, I listened to some of that as a member of the public, and I was startled with what they ended up with as their posts. So I would like to know for sure what 4 inch square steel posts are going to look like. Are they going to be just a nice dark something, no one's going to clad them with shiny white plastic, or shiny blue plastic to match the neighborhood? Chairperson Wilcox — she said facetiously. Alternate Member Erb — She said facetiously and with great distress. I would like to know for sure that they are just going to be quiet, dark, blend -in posts. Mr. Bianchi — We could paint the posts green from the ground, from the bottom of the sign if it helps blend... Alternate Member Erb — I am looking for them not to come out as shiny yellow or white or red plastic because you have those colors... because you have the colors in this, don't want the posts then, suddenly, to come up bright red. Mr. Bianchi — No, they will be black. Alternate Member Erb — Okay. Hey, I swore to myself that I would pay attention to that. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right, and the blue on the Rite Aid signs is.... Alternate Member Erb — Shocking and ugly and artificial and plastic and should have been counted as sign. PB 8/7/07 Pg 81 Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to take ... go ahead Kevin. Board Member Talty — I wanted to say, you know what this reminds me of, is going out, the Trux sign... remember that gentleman that came ... past Ithaca Beer....it's the Trux outfitter... Very similar to that. He was behind, but he needed a sign that was very visible back and forth because you could drive past his location like that (snap). Chairperson Wilcox — Because you don't see his building. Board Member Talty — That's what this reminds me of and I think we were pretty agreeable to how ... and it's okay, I mean, at least you can see where he is now. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. I'm going to take the motion as drafted and for the first there it be resolved, which has to do with our recommendation to the off - premises sign and within the 15 foot side yard setback, that that be approved. We recommend approval. And the second further resolve, which has to do with the request for a 69 square foot free - standing sign with copy change section, that that be denied. And then on the second page, that the proposed sign shall not exceed 50 square feet, which is the maximum allowed by zoning in that area. So moved by the Chair. Board Member Conneman — I'll second it. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. Board Member Hoffmann — Well I'd like to say that the applicant has not convinced me that this is the right sign and so I'd like to see both of them denied. Mr. Bianchi — With respect to the changeable copy, until they closed a few months back, Courtside across the street had changeable copy on their sign. And they used that quite effectively to advertise for new members, whatever their special pricing was for the period. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know what weight the Zoning Board will give to our recommendation. I'm sure they will take it seriously, but they will make their own determination. Mr. Bianchi — So I get to make that argument again with them? Chairperson Wilcox — You got to, you're gonna have to make the same arguments with them, they may ask the same questions, they may ask more questions... Board Member Talty —Sales pitch. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Signage is such that we put you through this twice. Absolutely. Because it has a potential impact. Significant impacts. PB 8/7/07 Pg 82 Mr. Bianchi.— Absolutely. I don't disagree. Alternate Member Erb — Can I ask another question? Just a real fast question. I found the letter from Cornell to Cathy Valentino to be very strange because I read the letter as ... not as saying if the Zoning Board of Appeals approves, we grant permission for the sign to be placed there. This letter reads like we allow him to come and ask for it, and is this typical of what we get? Chairperson Wilcox — Well the issue is Cornell owns the land and they are giving him permission to represent, essentially, Cornell. Alternate Member Erb — So that is the kind of wording? Because seriously, the... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I think essentially Cornell was saying he can represent... Mr. Bianchi — Yeah, they didn't want to be here tonight. Alternate Member Erb — Okay, it was just, it was very strange wording. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second... Board Member Hoffmann — Mr. Mangeroni is no longer in that office. Board Member Conneman — Well, Mr. Mangeroni can write anything he wants because he's down in Georgia, for Pete's sake. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second, any further discussion? Ms. Brock — I just have a correction to a typo ... in the first whereas clause, the third line from the bottom, and it is located too, t -o -o- close and then add the word "to ", the side -lot line. Chairperson Wilcox — Geez, I caught that one in the Public Hearing notice, I didn't catch it in this one... alright.... all those in favor ... excuse me ... any further discussion? All those in favor, please signal by saying aye ... anybody opposed? Eva is opposed, no abstentions... the motion ... I hate to say the motion is passed, the motion has the recommendation ... has been approved ... one of the recommendations, two of the variances have been recommended for approval, two of the variances have not been recommended for approval and your next step is to go to the ZBA. Good luck to you. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 084 Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Sign Variance — East Hill Car Wash 383 Pine Tree Road Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -13.2 and 62 -2 -13.6 Pa 8/7ia7 Pg 83 Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board (Planning Board) August 7, 2007 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 2. This action is consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the East Hill Car Wash located at 383 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -13.2 and 62 -2 -13.6, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal is to install a 69 +/- square foot sign on Cornell University property at the new driveway entrance on Pine Tree Road. The proposed sign will be approximately 16 feet high, internally lit, and includes a clock and a copy change section. Variances for this proposal include, but are not limited to, it being an off- premise sign, which is not permitted, it will exceed the maximum size of signs permitted, it contains a copy change section, which is not permitted, and it is located too close to the side lot line. Cornell University, Owner; TCW Associates, Inc., Applicant; Douglas G. Bianchi, Agent, 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held and accepted as adequate a drawing entitled dimensioned drawing of the proposed sign (pg and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. on August 7, 2007, has reviewed "Layout Plan" dated 01- 05 -06, a 5), and other application material, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for sign variances for an off - premise sign that is within the 15 foot side yard setback, where off - premise signs are prohibited and freestanding signs shall be placed no closer than 15 feet from a side lot line, be approved, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for a 69 +/- square foot freestanding sign which includes a copy- change section, where 50 square feet is the maximum area allowed for a freestanding sign in the commercial zone and where copy - change signs are not allowed on freestanding signs, be denied, subject to the following conditions: a. the proposed sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in total sign' area, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law (Town Code Section 221), and b, the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the sign, and PB 8/7/07 Pg 84 a, submission of documentation that Cornell University has granted the necessary easement, license or other legal authorization to East Hill Car Wash to allow the placement of the sign on Cornell property, prior to issuance of any sign permit, A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, NAYS: Hoffmann ABSTENTIONS: None The motion passed. Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb OTHER ITEMS Discussion and possible resolution to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding current zoning regulations and student housing in the Pennsylvania Avenue / Kendall Avenue area. Chairperson Wilcox — Guys, it's getting late, I know it's getting late...) actually threw something together at 5:30, not because we're going to get through it tonight, but I at least wanted to get something to this Board as a starting point, and I have to find it... I think I have enough copies going that way ... if you would pass it down ... even though your people are missing, Michael... Everyone get a copy that way? This should no way be considered anything other than I put something together at 5:00, it took me about a half an hour, it's a starting point ... I think that what I would suggest, given the hour, we're not going to sit here and wordsmith this at seven minutes after ten. For Susan's benefit, I through this together in a half an hour between 5:00 and 5:30 tonight, it's a starting point. What I guess I would recommend or suggest is that people email me suggested changes. You all have my new email address, hopefully, yeah, I think you all have my new email address. Board Member Thayer — My computer is crashed right at the moment. Board Member Talty — If I could make a recommendation ... it's great you made a hard copy, but why don't you just email this and then we could just... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but then I'm gonna get 7 different word documents back and I am going to have to try to figure out ... but I will do that, that will make my life hell but I will do that. I will mail the word document to everybody. Board Member Talty — Unprotected. Chairperson Wilcox — Unprotected. Board Member Thayer — I am in the repair shop with my computer. Chairperson Wilcox — alright, call me. Board Member Hoffmann — I wrote down a couple it by hand and I don't have time to type it out... PB 8/7/07 Pg 85 of quick things too, but just scribbled Chairperson Wilcox — So I will send the word document, people can add to it and then I will try to coalesce it together. I think we all know what we want, the question is how many whereases and how many resolves we put in. Clearly we are trying to protect ... but the key to this was, I think we're trying to do two things. Protect the neighborhood and 2, we also have the benefit of providing affordable housing. This is one of the few areas in the Town of Ithaca where affordable housing is possible because it's 9,000 square foot lots. With water and sewer, so you don't have to buy a third or a half an acre. Board Member Thayer — Right. Chairperson Wilcox —You need 9,000 square feet. Okay. So, can we...] will...l doubt I will do it tonight, but maybe I will do it tonight when I get home, I will email you the word document, okay. Very good. Board Member Hoffmann — Now when do you want this...things back? Chairperson Wilcox — We'll carry it to the next meeting, yes, and if you can get it back within a week... Board Member Hoffmann — And if you can't do that? Chairperson Wilcox — Get it back within a week and I will coalesce it together and I will email it back and we will bring it back at the meeting for further discussion. How's that. Board Member Hoffmann — And if I can't get it back to you? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I don't want to put this off for... Board Member Hoffmann — Do you want to take the little scribbles that I have? Chairperson Wilcox — I will take these and incorporate them, how's that? And if I can't read your Swedish printing, handwriting, I will give you a call. Board Member Hoffmann — I scribbled that very quickly too, I think it probably took 5 minutes. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, so that's that item. Let's do the other one here.. Lead Agency Notice The Cornell University Combined Heat and Power Project which is the rest of what they're doing. The DEC is volunteering to be the Lead Agency for environmental review. Board Member Riha — Oh wow. Chairperson Wilcox — I think this is a good thing. Board Member Thayer — That's a good thing. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. You have something for me to sign? Mr. Smith — Yes, I have a form for you to sign stating that you agree with them being Lead Agency. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we agree? Okay, let me move that we, that this Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby does ... agree...that the Department of Environmental Conservation should be the Lead Agency for the Cornell Combined Heat and Power Project. Board Member Thayer —Beautiful, Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by the Chair. Seconded by Larry, all in favor? Aye, anybody opposed? Nobody is opposed. I will sign it after the meeting, how's that? ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO, 2007 — 085 Designation of the Department of Environmental Conservation as Lead Agency Cornell Combined Heat and Power Project Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 7, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, Seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED That this Board, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, hereby does agree that the Department of Environmental Conservation should be the Lead Agency for the Cornell Combined Heat and Power Project. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann Conneman, Thayer, Talty, Riha and Erb NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None The Motion was passed. PB 8/7/07 Pg 87 Mr. Smith — Good. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Done. Alright. Briarwood II discussion. How much detail do we want to go into tonight on what the Town Board is up to and what we should do... You're looking at me quizzically. Susan is looking at me quizzically. Board Member Riha — Well, Larry Fabroni, they're going to make a presentation 2 weeks from now, right? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we can.. the reason he came is I had a discussion with Sue Ritter, which was, given what the Town Board is discussing right now, is it reasonable use of both the applicant's time and this Board's time to have both Larry and speakers who want to address this with regard to the flora and fauna and the UNA, is it worth our time to do that, given what the Town Board's up to. Does everybody know what the Town Board has done? Board Member Thayer — Tell us what the Town Board... Chairperson Wilcox — You want to do that ... I'll let you do it Susan because I might express a bias. Ms. Brock — Okay. The agenda for the Town Board's August 13th meeting is likely to include discussion of a proposed moratorium on development in the northeast corner of the Town pending the Town's review and possible study of issues in that area to determine whether the zoning should be changed, possibly to conservation zoning. The... Chairperson Wilcox — It is somewhat ironic that they would come to us for a recommendation, for the moratorium Ms. Brock — Yes, right, they would have a ...the agenda is likely to include a discussion of the possible moratorium, referral to the Planning Board for a recommendation... Chairperson Wilcox — We would hold a public hearing... Ms. Brock — as to a local law, among other things. Yes: The draft law will be completed tomorrow, when the Town Board mail -out occurs. It is expected to include a provision to enable the Planning Board to continue consideration and processing of the proposal, including re- determination of SEQR, or reassessment of SEQR and further interactions with the applicant and the members of the public, but, the Planning Board would not be able to issue final subdivision approval until the moratorium expires. However, it is also possible that at the end of the moratorium process, if the Town Board believes it's appropriate to rezone parcels in that area of the Town, and if they do so, it's possible that the subdivision as proposed would no longer be permitted as of right. Chairperson Wilcox — So given that backdrop, I thought that maybe it would not be a reasonable use of our time. Sue Ritter contacted Larry Fabroni this afternoon, filled him in. Larry stated to Susan, who left me a voicemail message this afternoon and also appeared here this evening during the Persons to be Heard indicating that he still wanted... Board Member Thayer — He still wants to go ahead... Chairperson Wilcox — Still wanted to come before this Board and if that's what we want, that's fine. More than happy to give him time to present what he, representing Mr. Lucente, has accomplished, and also, at the same time, I would give the opportunity for the ... what's the gentleman's name...it escapes me...Sonnenstahl, and anybody else, Mr. Whitmore or whoever, to make their presentation as well with regard to the UNA. We have a letter from the EMC, we have a resolution... we all get the resolution from EMC? In the mail? I was told that every member of the Planning Board was sent...l specifically called the County to ask... Board Member Talty — Can I just, layman English that, what you said? I got it but I just want to make sure I really got it. That Mr. Lucente is not grandfathered into this. That the Town Board could go and put a moratorium on development in the Northeast, which basically mixes his project. Is that basically it? Ms. Brock — No. Board Member Talty — No it's not ... okay. Ms. Brock — No. Board Member Talty — So he's grandfathered? Ms. Brock — No. Board Member Talty — then I don't get it. Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — The purpose of the moratorium would be to give the Town Board the time necessary to investigate whether the zoning on all or part of Mr. Lucente's land should be changed. Ms. Brock — And some other parcels as well. Chairperson Wilcox — And some other parcels including a Cornell University parcel and a Town park, a parcel that the Town owns. That would be the reason for the moratorium. PB 8/7/07 Pg 89 MR. Smith — They could get to the end of the moratorium and not change anything. Board Member Talty — I understand, but... Alternate Member Erb — If they change the zoning... Chairperson Wilcox — If they change the zoning, which would presumably would change the allowed density, then it's potential, it's possible that the applicant would have to start over or sue the Town. Board Member Thayer —Yeah, which could happen. Board Member Talty — This Planning Board member is in favor of not wasting my time. Board Member Thayer — What's the duration of the moratorium? Board Member Talty — Who knows, right? Ms. Brock — Well the Town Board will be discussing that, and they're not going to vote on it at their meeting because they would wait for the recommendation from you and they would also need to set a public hearing... Board Member Thayer — They're gonna wait for a recommendation from us. Ms. Brock — Hmmm, well, if you act on it reasonably quickly. It's likely they would vote on it at their September meeting. Right now I think the proposal would be for 6 months. Board Member Conneman — Larry said he had a lot of new information, which I assume he does, just based on everything that we hear. Mr. Smith — He expressed the same thing to Sue Ritter, that there's a lot. Board Member Conneman — Okay, if that's true, will the Town take that new information into account on the '13th, before they vote on a moratorium? Board Member Thayer — Not if they don't' hear it. Ms. Brock -- Well, the Town is looking at... Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Board will act in the way they feel best for themselves, and that's fine, that's their job, that's their role. What's our role? Our role is still as a Planning Board. I mean, I want to hear what Larry has done with regard to 30 of the 31 items that were on the ... I hear you Kevin... PB 8/7/07 Pg 90 Board Member Talty — I could care less. You know why? Because if they put a moratorium and they change the zoning, he's going to tear up all his plans. Chairperson Wilcox — What if they don't change the zoning? Board Member Talty — Then let him come in when he's ... when we have everything... when the smoke settles, then they can come in and ... I mean, I have a child at home, and this is not in our best interest to hear this at this moment if the zoning changes, and it throws his plans out the window. Board Member Riha — Well, not only that, his plans have changed a lot because we rejected the first, the outside consultant's ... they say a fair number of things were not right, so, I mean, his plans have already had to change a lot and they could change more... Board Member Talty — I mean, the Town Board could put this off...they are considering 6 months, what if it's 18 months? There's too many unknown factors going on here, whether it's the agent or the applicant, the Town Board, this Board, I just don't see any reason to tie up a night. Board Member Riha — Well Fred and Susan, my question is, what would ... what does the Town Board want to hear from the Planning Board and when? Board Member Talty— Yeah Board Member Riha — Because it does seem like we should... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. My understanding, Susan will correct me....Susan will politely correct me if I make a mistake [laughter] ...At some point, the, it is possible that the Town Board could decide that a moratorium is in the best interests of various parties, in that area. If they decide that they want to proceed that way, they would forward the proposed local law to this Board, to hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation. Board Member Talty — Of what? Chairperson Wilcox -- Of a moratorium. Board Member Talty — So it's coming, so they're gonna pass it down to us is what they're gonna do. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh absolutely. They'll pass it to us for a recommendation. We'll hold a public hearing... Ms. Brock — because it amends the zoning. PB 8/7/07 Pg 91 Chairperson Wilcox — It amends the zoning. It goes back to the Town ... Let's assume it goes, whether we recommend it or not, let's assume it goes back to the Town Board, let's assume that they enact the moratorium, okay, which would prevent presumably, presumably any building in that area for 6 months. You can't go 18 months or 2 years because I believe there is some law which prevents moratoriums being used for very extended periods of time... Board Member Talty — I don't think so. Chairperson Wilcox — During the moratorium, that gives the Town Board, the Planning Department, as directed by the Town Board, that gives them the time to make studies, perform studies, get information, to see if the zoning should potentially be changed to conservation zone, that's what I heard. Board Member Talty — l hear what you're saying, but this cries foul all over the place. I'm sorry. I call it how it is. Board Member Thayer — It cries lawsuit, in my mind. Board Member Talty — It cries all kinds of stuff. Board Member Conneman — What's gonna happen at the public hearing? Larry's going to testify, is he not. He's going to come before you and say let me show you how we changed it. Ms. Brock — But George, that's actually not relevant to what the Town Board is looking at. Any specific proposals that are in front of the Planning Board don't have any relevance to what the Town Board is considering. They're looking at the Comprehensive Plan, the Open Space Plan, the Unique Natural Area designation by the Environmental Management Council, there's plenty of documentation already recommending conservation zoning for this area, we are going to look at that, determine whether ... They will look at that and determine whether it would be appropriate to institute the moratorium so that they can study the issue more in depth to determine whether the zoning should be changed. It doesn't have anything to do with a specific proposal or and particular changes that maybe are now being contemplated for any specific proposal. Board Member Conneman — Okay. Mr. Smith — So the developer can continue on with their application. Ms. Brock — If the moratorium is adopted as it's currently drafted, it would allow them.. .it would allow you, the Planning Board, to continue to process the application... Board Member Talty — sure because they... PB 8/7/07 Pg 92 Ms. Brock — But you could not issue the final approval. Board Member Talty — That's right because we could actually continue the process and play the waiting game and then when the moratorium runs out or they extend it or whatever they do or they change the zoning, then either he enacts the plan that we have up to that point, right, to go forward, maybe nothing changed. 4r, if it did change, then they'd have to go back to start. Potentially. Right? I .don't see any reason why we should waste our time. Mr. Smith — And I think that's what Larry's looking to do is continue on the process. He would like to do the presentation to you... Chairperson Wilcox — Sort of a sketch plan update /review. Board Member Talty — Because the clock is ticking. He's betting that he could probably get some kind of judge to go along with him somewhere and win his lawsuit and then he'll have all his plans in place, the zoning won't change and it will be a slamdunk and he won't lose any time. That's what they're trying to do. And I'm not gonna sit here on an ifcome. I want all of the dust to settle, that's what I want. Mr. Smith — Just so the Board knows, this was being discussed a month ago before the moratorium issue was being talked about by the Town Board. Staff met with Larry a month ago. Chairperson Wilcox -- Simple majority rules here. Alternate Member Erb — I was just curious about whether this ... the only other moratorium that I was personally aware of was the drive -thru moratorium, and was essentially the same process used there? Chairperson Wilcox — The drive -thru moratorium? Alternate Member Erb — the moratorium on 1,500 foot... Board Member Thayer — that's not a moratorium... Chairperson Wilcox — That's not a moratorium, that was... Alternate Member Erb — No, no there was a moratorium that was put in place, did that also come to the Planning Board? For a recommendation? I am just curious about the methodologies here. Chairperson Wilcox — The last one I remember was adult entertainment zones. Their was a moratorium on adult entertainment while the Town got the zoning in place, and that certainly came to this Board for a recommendation. PB 8!7/07 Pg 93 Alternate Member Erb — Okay, so this is the typical pattern? Chairperson Wilcox — Normal procedure, when the zoning is changed... Ms. Brock — Right, all the changes to the zoning ordinance come to your for a recommendation. So they are following the normal process. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want Larry here? Susan? You have a right to express an opinion. Board Member Riha - No, I'm with Kevin. Chairperson Wilcox — No...no...no...what are you?... George.... George is a no... Board Member Hoffmann —What is the question? Whether we... Chairperson Wilcox — Whether we want Larry to appear here, and if Larry appears, by the way, also Sonnenstahl and .Whitmore and anybody else who wants to come talk about the flora or fauna would also be invited to give a separate presentation ... I got a. majority of no's. The answer is no, that we will not have an agenda item in 2 weeks... Board Member Talty = For either party, right? Chairperson Wilcox — Both, I've been thinking them both together, I am not going to take one without the other. Both want to give us information, both have the opportunity and the right to gibe us information at the appropriate time. I'm not gonna, I'm gonna treat them both equally. Board Member Talty — What did you vote Fred? Chairperson Wilcox — I wanted Larry here. the minority. Alternate Member Erb — I am a no on this. I want to know what's going on, but I'm in Chairperson Wilcox — I'm in the minority, and that's fine. Now, I do want to point out, I got a letter from.:.letter...l got a resolution passed by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council... Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I' got it too. Chairperson Wilcox — You got t ... let's make sure everybody gets a copy....Which essentially says...] could speak hours on what's been going on the last couple of weeks. I'm being a very good boy right now. We have to meet to make sure that everybody get's a copy of this, no matter what, but I was assured that every member of the Planning Board was mailed one, when I talked to the County. I also went and got PB 8/7/07 Pg 94 the draft minutes from that meeting because I was curious as to who proposed the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes and what I didn't like about this letter is it doesn't say who was on the Environmental Management Council... Chairperson Wilcox — It doesn't even say who voted in favor of it. Board Member Hoffmann — It doesn't say who voted for or against it... Chairperson Wilcox — Of course not. No ... If you got o the minutes you get a little bit more information. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but if they send it out they should send out complete information. Chairperson Wilcox — And if you really want to irritate me, go look at the EMC's website and see what their purpose is. Yeah, I know, don't go there Fred... Board Member Talty — You're okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. That s it on my other business . We still have approval 1 01 1$ of minutes to do. We'll do this real quickly. Let me, as I normally. do, let me move approval of the minutes of July 3rd....seconded by Kevin. Eva, got anything ?...all in favor raise your hand ... I have everybody in favor, nobody against... motion is passed. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 = 086 Minutes of July 3, 2007 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 7, 2007 Motion made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from July 3, 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 July 3, 2007. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Riha NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: None PB 8/7/07 Pg 95 The Motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me move approval of the minutes of July 17ty ... have a second? ... Larry seconds... again I will ask for a show of hands ... Eva, you have your changes? ... Yes...all those in favor raise your hand ... I have Fred, George, I have Larry and I have Susan....all those opposed.... nobody's opposed... abstentions ... I have Eva, Kevin and Hollis at the end ... motion passes four in favor, none against, three abstentions. ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 087 Minutes of July 17, 2007 Town of Ithaca Planning Board August 7, 2007 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from July 17, 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 July 17, 2007. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Riha, NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Hoffmann, Talty, and Erb The Motion passed. MEETING AGENDA Mr. Smith — August 21St we have the Cornell Animal Diagnostic Center and I have the binders here of the materials for the project that I will hand out to everybody so you have it. There's quite a bit of material. There's one packet that's the preliminary site plan and the other one that's the long EAF. So there's quite a bit to go through and this way we don't have to mail it out. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Only one item at the next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right because we just got rid of one. PB 8/7/07 Pg 96 Alternate Member Erb — Just for the record, even if you have an absentee for the night, I will have to recuse myself from that because that facility is within my own department, and although I have no laboratory space and it doesn't affect me, I feel that the appearance from outside would be very bad. But I'd still like to, see the packet. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh you'll still get it. Okay. Anything else? Can I have a motion to adjourn...So moved. We're adjourned at 10:28p.m. 9 Paulette WeRsen, beputy Towh Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, gust 7, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of 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, +/- 6,787 square foot sailing center and 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. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the French Lavender Flower Shop located at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to have two wall signs (where one wall sign is permitted) on the building, with the sign on the front of the building being +/- 23 square feet (where 4 square feet is permitted). Eunice A. McFall, Owner; Monique L. Morse, Applicant. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Boat Mooring, 1035 Taughannock Boulevard, 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary. and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed mooring buoy located at 1035 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2 -18, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a boat mooring buoy at approximately the midpoint of the lakefront of the property. David Yeater, Owner /Applicant. 8:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Overlook at West Hill Fences, West Hill Drive, 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (Site Plan Modification) for the proposed stormwater fences located on the Overlook at Westhill property, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24.4-14.23 and 24.4.14.24, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves the installation of two four -foot tall fences surrounding the stormwater management ponds, one located near the intersection of NYS Route 96 and West Hill Drive, and one south of the Community Center in the Overlook at Westhill development. The Domain Companies, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Applicant/Agent. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the East Hill Car Wash located at 383 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -13.2 and 62 -2 -13.6, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal is to install a 69 +/- square foot sign on Cornell University property at the new driveway entrance on Pine Tree Road. The proposed sign will be approximately 16 feet high, internally lit, and includes a clock and a copy change section. Variances for this proposal include, but are not limited to, it being an off - premise .sign, which is not permitted, it will exceed the maximum size of signs permitted, it contains a copy change section, which is not permitted, and it is located too close the side lot line. Cornell University, Owner; TCW Associates, Inc., Applicant; Douglas G. Bianchi, Agent. 8:45 P.M. Discussion and possible resolution to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding current zoning regulations and student housing in the Pennsylvania Avenue / Kendall Avenue area. 9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 10. Approval of Minutes: July 3, 2007 and July 17, 2007. 11, Other Business: 12. 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 HEARING Tuesday August 7, 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, August 7, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Continuation of 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, +/- 6,787 square foot sailing center and 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, 7:45 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the French Lavender Flower Shop located at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to have two wall signs (where one wall sign is permitted) on the building, with the sign on the front of the building being +/- 23 square feet (where 4 square feet is permitted). Eunice A. McFall, Owner; Monique L. Morse, Applicant. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed mooring buoy located at 1035 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2 -18, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a boat mooring buoy at approximately the midpoint of the lakefront of the property. David Yeater, Owner /Applicant. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval (Site Plan Modification) for the proposed stormwater fences located on the Overlook at Westhill property, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24.4-14.23 and 24.- 4.14.24, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves the installation of two four -foot tall fences surrounding the stormwater management ponds, one located near the intersection of NYS Route 96 and West Hill Drive, and one south of the Community Center in the Overlook at Westhill development. The Domain Companies, Owner; Stacey Whitney, Applicant/Agent, 8:30 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the East Hill Car Wash located at 383 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -2 -13.2 and 62 -2- 13.6, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal is to install a 69 +/- square foot sign on Cornell University property at the new driveway entrance on Pine Tree Road. The proposed sign will be approximately 16 feet high, internally lit, and includes a clock and a copy change section. Variances for this proposal include, but are not limited to, it being an off - premise sign, which is not permitted, it will exceed the maximum size of signs permitted, it contains a copy change section, which is not permitted, and it is located too close the side lot line. Cornell University, Owner; TCW Associates, Inc., Applicant; Douglas G. Bianchi, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter 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 hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, July 30, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, August 1, 2007 Wednesday, August 1, 2007 JHE ITHACA- JOURNAL dTOWN OF ITHAC •A - PLANNING ;BOARD NOTIE.F PUBLIC `y; f` O �: HEARING ` t Of ird oflheT6wn °of Ithaca;' Tuesday' , ,: Auguit ; 7; D7,-.at 215'North Ti a i hknrn N Y . ; ni fha ' if a :add educational, uses :ond'i 'additional: >yyard'>regulations„ to the Lakehont Commercial :Zone 'mn co' dri6ioni with ,the proposed &construction',' of the Merrill- Family'Sailing j [.Ithaca Tai- Parcel No.-' 192- '. 29, ;Lakefront "Commercial Zone. '..The- _proposal' in- `ch -des the 'demolition of the) existing sailing center- buildi iag- fonthe canstructiori'of a new'. '2 _story, +/1; 6,787 ,square :foot saihng• center , and: observation deck '.-The project will also include the } ,constru tion,of anew 20' x i-60"boat stor6ge- shed,,irn1 proye_ments to the.- gravel boat launch and.` oa&in6 t. lighting - and -, landscaping:: Corne .-University;,Qwner/ Applicant; Robert Blakeney,'- CorniIkUniJersityfand Do- Y, vid 'A.:' Schlosser; "AIA,' Schopfer: • . Archifects;- Agents. q. 7:4SP . .:Consideration Of a recommendation to the`. Town of" Ithaca- :Zonings Board of, Appiali regorr : ing sign; variances for the' French' ±`.Lavender.': flower- Shop; dbcated .µ at x903- yard of Appeals regard 3'siggnvariances for - ,the:', ist=Hill Car Wash located '383 ;Pine °Tree Road,'r wn of Ithaca Tax. Parcel' o..`s.'62- 2- 13.2 -and 62 -2 -- 1'6, Community:,Commecr' iI-Zone -7he; proposal is instgll;'a,69` +/- square :W.sign.on-Cornell Univer y,,property at.'ahe new= ivewav-enhance on r Pine: ens r�ua me proposea In` -will :be approximately. > feet high • internally lit,.`, d }includes a clock -and a pychange section or ices for-.-this proposal in- ide; :but: -are not limited it being an- off - premise` in, which is not - permit I; it wil l. exceed the: maxi im ;size' `of- signs - permit If 5 it ,contains` . a - copy ange-, 'section; `-which, _is F oermitted,.and stns; to ; Said_Planning 'Acard will at said "- times -sand -said place hear :all persons -in support,of such' matters or objections thereto:'- Persons. s :or will b hours priorao: if; .the public jonaman nanrer, AiLw Director of :Planning 273 -,1747 f -Dated Mond Judy 30, 200 j r.PubGsh: Wednesday, ; : Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street August 7, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name 'ic - Address 5Ca-(-8�u' L L ck, Iris+ g-// ltllf�C4 -(fl S/ G1HY 4:5�4- `taQ<::-_i �/\ I GO % (IJ 74 S lA �C`�) I� I InlIM ZC�U wL s r' H/� Cl 2C L �= 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 August 7, 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 30, 2007 August 1, 2007 Qc-ec Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1" day of August 2007. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 G